I'm pretty surprised (well, not really) at the mental gymnastics that some people will go through to maintain that god or no god, both are equally valid propositions because neither can be proven with any certainty.

So here's a thought experiment I came up with as an analogy. Imagine you're a police officer driving over an overpass and you see two guys walk under the bridge. You're bored and convince yourself that it looks suspicious so you turn around and head back to investigate. When you get under the bridge you see one guy dead on the ground next to a pipe with his skull cracked and the other standing there with blood splatter on his clothes. The guy claims that he was just holding the pipe and it magically flew out of his hand and bashed the other guy in the head.

Now in court you become the atheist in the debate and he the theist. He's making the claim that you have to accept the possibility that something magical that you've never seen before happened because you can't prove otherwise and he also has a lot to lose if you refuse this claim. You just want the court to examine the evidence that was collected by forensics, the blood splatter on his clothes, his fingerprints on the pipe, his blood on the victim (which he refuses to acknowledge or claims is fabricated conspiracy evidence) indicating a struggle. All of this evidence is not conclusive proof of his guilt. There's a slight chance that he could be telling the truth about the magic flying pipe but do we give equal credence to his version of events because we don't have a video of him committing the murder?

Ramjet38

07-16-2012, 18:08

Imagine you are dead. Imagine that one day you suddenly are awaken from your tomb beneath the ground. Imagine that you are looking around and others are standing there with you looking upwards. A Great Light shines down from the Heavens and you wonder what this could be. You suddenly remember that you died after suffering in a hospital bed for so long a time. "What is happening". You say to yourself. "This can't be"!

We can imagine all day long, but you'll never know for sure...will ya?

High-Gear

07-16-2012, 18:48

Imagine you are dead. Imagine that one day you suddenly are awaken from your tomb beneath the ground. Imagine that you are looking around and others are standing there with you looking upwards. A Great Light shines down from the Heavens and you wonder what this could be. You suddenly remember that you died after suffering in a hospital bed for so long a time. "What is happening". You say to yourself. "This can't be"!

We can imagine all day long, but you'll never know for sure...will ya?

That was about the worst non-rebuttal I have ever read!

Japle

07-16-2012, 18:52

The mental gymnastics are necessary because some people are either incapable of critical thinking or they’re so invested in their religion that they’re emotionally unable to accept any facts that contradict it.

Their ability to deliberately misunderstand the scientific method (and the evidence it has produced), while using a computer that wouldn’t exist without that method never ceases to amaze me.

Snapper2

07-16-2012, 19:41

The mental gymnastics are necessary because some people are either incapable of critical thinking or they’re so invested in their religion that they’re emotionally unable to accept any facts that contradict it. Or they feel like they've wasted a lot of that invested time and are trying to make up for it by not allowing others to have their own opinion. It can go both ways.We are free to believe as we wish...... So far.

Tilley

07-17-2012, 00:56

That was about the worst non-rebuttal I have ever read!

Imagine Gunhaver is very sick and eventually dies. The next thing Gunhaver sees is waking up and being greeted by Adolf Hitler, Sadam Hussein and Barach Obama...:shocked:

Yeah...makes ya think, huh?

High-Gear

07-17-2012, 03:56

Imagine Gunhaver is very sick and eventually dies. The next thing Gunhaver sees is waking up and being greeted by Adolf Hitler, Sadam Hussein and Barach Obama...:shocked:

Yeah...makes ya think, huh?

Snapper, you find any of that evidence yet? Oh, too busy trying to be witty, eh? Stop! You stink at it.

And really, why do you include your president in that list?

Lone Wolf8634

07-17-2012, 08:14

Imagine Gunhaver is very sick and eventually dies. The next thing Gunhaver sees is waking up and being greeted by Adolf Hitler, Sadam Hussein and Barach Obama...:shocked:

Snapper, you find any of that evidence yet? Oh, too busy trying to be witty, eh? Stop! You stink at it.

The evidence I see is ......why tell another about the God you believe in? 1)out of love 2) out a need to be right 3) working your way to "heaven"... separate motives. ........why tell another there is no God? 1)a bad past experience with religion 2)for some reason you WANT to prove there is no God 3)you have nothing better to do so instead of using your great scientific mind and all this knowledge to better society you instead try to change others opinion to believe like you and allow them to make the scientific discoveries.....either way you cut it all it adds up to is arguments and name calling that waste time.

Ramjet38

07-17-2012, 16:49

Thanks everyone. I would've been very disappointed in receiving anything else. Hope that someday you get to reflect on your stance and change.

If you think mankind and science has the answers to the universe...it's a very dangerous position to take.

jakebrake

07-17-2012, 16:52

only evidence i have, is my wife and daughter, and my sobriety...

tears streaming down my face, i know there is a God, and, for some reason, he still loves me.

Sarge1400

07-17-2012, 17:06

only evidence i have, is my wife and daughter, and my sobriety...

tears streaming down my face, i know there is a God, and, for some reason, he still loves me.

So you, or the devil, or some other such thing at one point caused you to lose your sobriety, and god helped you find it?

How do you know it wasn't the other way around?

Though I am glad you are sober, and have your wife and daughter, your argument is hardly compelling.

jakebrake

07-17-2012, 17:07

So you, or the devil, or some other such thing at one point caused you to lose your sobriety, and god helped you find it?

How do you know it wasn't the other way around?

Though I am glad you are sober, and have your wife and daughter, your argument is hardly compelling.

when the only tool you have to fight anymore is prayer? you'll understand.

High-Gear

07-17-2012, 17:15

when the only tool you have to fight anymore is prayer? you'll understand.

I'm happy for you, truly I am. I'm also happy you found the strength to make a positive change, but don't sell yourself short...you made it happen! Congrats!

Sarge1400

07-17-2012, 17:17

when the only tool you have to fight anymore is prayer? you'll understand.

BTDT. Then I figured out that getting off my ass and taking care of it myself would probably be more productive. And it was.

You beat the addiction yourself, and needn't feel guilty about that. Give yourself some credit.

Gunhaver

07-17-2012, 18:08

God helps those that help themselves. Translation: Get off your ass and take care of it yourself and then give god all the credit.

Snapper2

07-17-2012, 18:38

God helps those that help themselves. Translation: Get off your ass and take care of it yourself and then give god all the credit.
What would you consider to be evidence then? Stay on your ass and God takes care of it? If not, blame Him or better yet claim He doesnt exist. Sometimes when searching for what we think are the most valuable things in life we dont see them until they are taken away.If evidence is your jewel then go for it But if youre taking full credit dont blame something you dont believe in for your experience. Why not let each seek his own?

Gunhaver

07-17-2012, 19:10

What would you consider to be evidence then?
Oh, I don't know, maybe people who pray to god for good luck or help having good fortune or coming through hard times at a highly disproportionate rate to those that don't? That would be convincing.
Stay on your ass and God takes care of it? If not, blame Him or better yet claim He doesnt exist.
Sure. That would work too. If members of a particular religion never seemed to do anything but they were all fat, rich and happy then I'd call that very compelling evidence. Doesn't seem to be the case.
Sometimes when searching for what we think are the most valuable things in life we dont see them until they are taken away.If evidence is your jewel then go for it But if youre taking full credit dont blame something you dont believe in for your experience. Why not let each seek his own?
Now why would I blame something I don't believe in for anything? What's going on here is that people have good times and rough spots and each more of one or the other. The only difference is that there are those that very selectively give their god credit wherever it makes them feel most comfortable. It's like that guy crawling out of the 20 car pileup with only a few broken ribs proclaiming that god protected him while ignoring the numerous dead and injured around him.

Snapper2

07-17-2012, 19:31

Now why would I blame something I don't believe in for anything? What's going on here is that people have good times and rough spots and each more of one or the other. The only difference is that there are those that very selectively give their god credit wherever it makes them feel most comfortable. It's like that guy crawling out of the 20 car pileup with only a few broken ribs proclaiming that god protected him while ignoring the numerous dead and injured around him.
Say for example I have been neglecting my family and it leads into a gambling addiction that cost me my family. I realize then what I've lost and get help:whistling:. Did the addiction save me from myself and whats important?Do I credit myself for losing and finding whats important? It sounds like the gambling addiction that I was powerless to saved my marriage by hitting rock bottom.

Geko45

07-17-2012, 19:47

What Gunhaver is touching on is the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning. As much as we might like to think that what we know is certainly, nearly everything we think we know beyond a doubt is actually derived from inductive reasoning.

Deductive reasoning essentially means absolute proof, whereas inductive reasoning is always non-conclusive. An example of deductive reasoning would be "2+2=4". An example of inductive reasoning would be finding Gunhaver's fictional suspect guilty because all of the circumstantial evidence points to him.

This relative strength of assessing one position against another through inductive logic is something we put in practice a thousand times a day. We have to because we almost never have all the facts necessary to make deductive conclusions. It's usually of no real concern because the human mind is fairly skilled at picking out salient information and discarding background noise.

But then you have this topic of religion where the whole system breaks down. A myth gets put forth that is fairly enticing and suddenly we through all of higher brain powers out the window in exchange for a form of denial that let's us believe we won't really die. The human psyche conning itself if you will.

So, a majority of us (still can't wrap my mind around that) choose to be believe a fantastic tale of a kindly old grandfather figure who only wants to take care of us rather accept the overwhelming evidence that we are truly mortal and will cease to exist upon death.

Tilley

07-17-2012, 19:48

Deleted.

Gunhaver

07-17-2012, 19:49

Say for example I have been neglecting my family and it leads into a gambling addiction that cost me my family. I realize then what I've lost and get help:whistling:. Did the addiction save me from myself and whats important?Do I credit myself for losing and finding whats important? It sounds like the gambling addiction that I was powerless to saved my marriage by hitting rock bottom.

Sounds like, for example, you effed up and lost something important to you and then cleaned your act up and your wife, for example, decided to give you a second chance.

Same kind of things happen to people every day and some get lucky and some don't. Some loose everything through no fault of their own and others don't really deserve a thing they have and never lose it. I see no reason to bring a god into it unless you either really can't believe you had the strength to get it together on your own or you want to feel even more special about pulling through a predicament by convincing yourself that you were chosen for some divine assistance that so many others are clearly not.

Gunhaver

07-17-2012, 19:51

Deleted.

Aw **** I missed it. I'm sure it was a gem.

Snapper2

07-17-2012, 20:21

Sounds like, for example, you effed up and lost something important to you and then cleaned your act up and your wife, for example, decided to give you a second chance.

Same kind of things happen to people every day and some get lucky and some don't. Some loose everything through no fault of their own and others don't really deserve a thing they have and never lose it. I see no reason to bring a god into it unless you either really can't believe you had the strength to get it together on your own or you want to feel even more special about pulling through a predicament by convincing yourself that you were chosen for some divine assistance that so many others are clearly not.
Not everyone is like you. A lot of us are powerless against our "addictions" whatever they may be. The problem is that with all our knowledge we have today we still havent caught up to our biggest problem and that is sin. God remedied this years ago but we've out grown it in our opinion. We cure one addiction/sickness and another pops up. If we are consumed we are called weak. If we overcome we called are strong. Do you really think you can make someone strong by disputing away something they believe in?

Geko45

07-17-2012, 20:37

The problem is that with all our knowledge we have today we still havent caught up to our biggest problem and that is sin.

Maybe we haven't conquered "sin" yet because as a soceity we are still clinging to an ancient and archaic definition of it?

Snapper2

07-17-2012, 20:51

Maybe we haven't conquered "sin" yet because as a soceity we are still clinging to an ancient and archaic definition of it?
Not sure I follow. As in if all is allowed nothing is sin? Wouldn't a seared conscience give the same effect but with the wrong results?Or do we as a country decide how we live?

Cavalry Doc

07-17-2012, 21:31

I'm pretty surprised (well, not really) at the mental gymnastics that some people will go through to maintain that god or no god, both are equally valid propositions because neither can be proven with any certainty.

So here's a thought experiment I came up with as an analogy. Imagine you're a police officer driving over an overpass and you see two guys walk under the bridge. You're bored and convince yourself that it looks suspicious so you turn around and head back to investigate. When you get under the bridge you see one guy dead on the ground next to a pipe with his skull cracked and the other standing there with blood splatter on his clothes. The guy claims that he was just holding the pipe and it magically flew out of his hand and bashed the other guy in the head.

Now in court you become the atheist in the debate and he the theist. He's making the claim that you have to accept the possibility that something magical that you've never seen before happened because you can't prove otherwise and he also has a lot to lose if you refuse this claim. You just want the court to examine the evidence that was collected by forensics, the blood splatter on his clothes, his fingerprints on the pipe, his blood on the victim (which he refuses to acknowledge or claims is fabricated conspiracy evidence) indicating a struggle. All of this evidence is not conclusive proof of his guilt. There's a slight chance that he could be telling the truth about the magic flying pipe but do we give equal credence to his version of events because we don't have a video of him committing the murder?

Very bad analogy. Nuff said about that.

Why make up an analogy at all. Look at the actual question. There is amazingly complex and somewhat ordered nature of the universe. It is what it is, and that is plainly true. Nothing that we have discovered has proven how it got here. We have some neat stuff we are discovering even now, but whether the big bang just happened, or was made to happen, who knows?

You could make an argument from incredulity, and claim that the universe is too orderly to just have happened, and declare that a deity must have designed it.

You could make an argument from ignorance, and claim that you have found no evidence of "X" and so therefor "X" does not exist, and I guess we should add the corollary, that we think something can come from nothing, please pardon us as we attempt to prove that..... Which again, only adds complexity to the argument from ignorance, because even if mass can be produced, it doesn't explain how it all got to where it is in the shape it is in now.

Or, you could just say, eh? I wasn't there, so I simply don't know for sure, but it sure is still fun to look at all the stuff that is here, and see how it works.

We all make our choices, based sometimes on what feels right, or in avoidance of what feels wrong. But they are choices just the same.

some pretty smart guys had a tough time with the question too.
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm

Geko45

07-17-2012, 21:53

You could make an argument from incredulity

You could make an argument from ignorance

Or, you could just say, eh? I wasn't there, so I simply don't know for sure

Fallacy of Exhaustive Hypotheses. One could also make an argument based on the facts that are available and come to an inductive conclusion supported by evidence. It could never be 100% definite, but it would be much more valid than any of the other options you've described.

I've said this before, but conclusive deductive reasoning is mostly an illusion. Almost nothing that we all would consider as absolute fact can be proven conclusively (for instance "the sky is blue). So, attempting to dismiss an argument simply because it can not be absolutely certain is essentially choosing to wallow in ignorance.

Gunhaver

07-18-2012, 03:00

Very bad analogy. Nuff said about that.

Why make up an analogy at all. Look at the actual question. There is amazingly complex and somewhat ordered nature of the universe. It is what it is, and that is plainly true. Nothing that we have discovered has proven how it got here. We have some neat stuff we are discovering even now, but whether the big bang just happened, or was made to happen, who knows?

You could make an argument from incredulity, and claim that the universe is too orderly to just have happened, and declare that a deity must have designed it.

You could make an argument from ignorance, and claim that you have found no evidence of "X" and so therefor "X" does not exist, and I guess we should add the corollary, that we think something can come from nothing, please pardon us as we attempt to prove that..... Which again, only adds complexity to the argument from ignorance, because even if mass can be produced, it doesn't explain how it all got to where it is in the shape it is in now.

Or, you could just say, eh? I wasn't there, so I simply don't know for sure, but it sure is still fun to look at all the stuff that is here, and see how it works.

We all make our choices, based sometimes on what feels right, or in avoidance of what feels wrong. But they are choices just the same.

some pretty smart guys had a tough time with the question too.
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm

The thing you always seem to comfortably ignore is that none of these deity imaginings really address the question that they're meant to address. They just push the questions back to a level where some people are comfortable with. Deity doesn't solve something from nothing. Where did deity come from? It's just a pathetic attempt by people that really want deity (always their particular flavor of course) to exist.

Deity doesn't solve the problem of incredulity. That's just an appeasement to what we don't yet understand to say it's all to complex or orderly. Strikes me as a bit defeatist actually. It's actually barely orderly enough for us to be here and not really a bit more so far as we can see unless you're one to insist on deity and then how did deity get so darned orderly in the first place? Just pushing the questions back and claiming equal footing with those who are actually figuring it out. But hey, whatever makes you feel like you have just as much chance of being right as the people who know what they're talking about.

Cavalry Doc

07-18-2012, 04:41

The thing you always seem to comfortably ignore is that none of these deity imaginings really address the question that they're meant to address. They just push the questions back to a level where some people are comfortable with. Deity doesn't solve something from nothing. Where did deity come from? It's just a pathetic attempt by people that really want deity (always their particular flavor of course) to exist.

Deity doesn't solve the problem of incredulity. That's just an appeasement to what we don't yet understand to say it's all to complex or orderly. Strikes me as a bit defeatist actually. It's actually barely orderly enough for us to be here and not really a bit more so far as we can see unless you're one to insist on deity and then how did deity get so darned orderly in the first place? Just pushing the questions back and claiming equal footing with those who are actually figuring it out. But hey, whatever makes you feel like you have just as much chance of being right as the people who know what they're talking about.

I've addressed the issue of multiple creation stories multiple times, just not yet in this thread. Obviously, not all of them can be right, not all of them have to be wrong. It is certainly possible that a deity existed that created the universe that is no where near what is described in any other religion. I've never underestimated the power of mankind to "get it wrong". And yes, I do lump those that believe that no deity exists are in that same group, not very popular around here, but it makes perfect sence. After all, being sure enough that no deity has ever existed is also an assumption. Consider that a deity doesn't have to be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, or even immortal. When you really think about it, admitting you don't know is fairly reasonable. But it's not a good position in Internet debates with theists, if you are anti-theist more than you are atheist. Most theists will admit their faith, and "but you can't be sure because I'm not sure" isn't a very good argument. That's one of many theories for why the term "atheist" has grown beyond its actual American English definition in the USA. It's only a theory though.

Geko45

07-18-2012, 05:00

After all, being sure enough that no deity has ever existed is also an assumption.

You don't know that. The problem may indeed be solvable. You would have us all stop looking for answer. The great minds among us will always keep searching.

Consider that a deity doesn't have to be omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, or even immortal.

A being without those attributes would be finite and not a deity at all. The same questions we seek answers for would apply to them. Where did they come from?

Cavalry Doc

07-18-2012, 06:29

You don't know that. The problem may indeed be solvable. You would have us all stop looking for answer. The great minds among us will always keep searching.

A being without those attributes would be finite and not a deity at all. The same questions we seek answers for would apply to them. Where did they come from?

And another straw man? When have I ever proposed that we (mankind) stop looking for any answer?

Who made the rule that deities need to have particular traits?

As far as where did they come from, that's a darn good question. I don't know, do you?

Geko45

07-18-2012, 06:46

And another straw man?

http://rantz72.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/inconceivable.jpg

Lone Wolf8634

07-18-2012, 07:39

Who made the rule that deities need to have particular traits?

As far as where did they come from, that's a darn good question. I don't know, do you?

In order to qualify as a deity, specific traits must be applied.

Otherwise you don't have a deity.

As far as where they come from, I think that would be a rather important question, don't you?

Bren

07-18-2012, 07:58

I'm pretty surprised (well, not really) at the mental gymnastics that some people will go through to maintain that god or no god, both are equally valid propositions because neither can be proven with any certainty.

So here's a thought experiment I came up with as an analogy. Imagine you're a police officer ....

Which reminds me that this kind of thinking isn't limited to the religious issues forum. You've posted on the threads about the Florida police shooting yesterday - nowhere will you find more clear illustrations of people believing what they want to be true ("police bad"), with no evidence at all. Mention that "the evidence of X is undisputed" because there is absolutely no contrary evidence of any kind and you'll be ridiculed by people who may not even know what "undisputed" means.

Same in the political forum, etc. and on other internet forums it can be even worse - the James Randi Educational Foundation forum, for people who pretend to be rational and skeptical, is one of the worst (although it does draw a shocking number of people who seem to be legitimately mentally ill).

My conclusion: Most people are stupid and now that we have the internet, we can hear from most of them.

Lone Wolf8634

07-18-2012, 08:00

My conclusion: Most people are stupid and now that we have the internet, we can hear from most of them.

As far as where they come from, I think that would be a rather important question, don't you?

Well, I'm not sure who makes the rules for that.

It is a good question, where would you start looking for an answer?

Geko45

07-18-2012, 09:04

Well, I'm not sure who makes the rules for that.

It is a good question, where would you start looking for an answer?

Nobody makes "rules" for that it is simple deduction. How could a finite being have created an infinte universe? It's not possible. A finite being would have to be regulated by the physical laws that govern the universe in which they exist. So thermodynamics would be in full effect and they would be duly limited by it.

Cavalry Doc

07-18-2012, 09:28

Nobody makes "rules" for that it is simple deduction. How could a finite being have created an infinte universe? It's not possible. A finite being would have to be regulated by the physical laws that govern the universe in which they exist. So thermodynamics would be in full effect and they would be duly limited by it.

Well, many things were seen as magical before they were understood. Just because we cannot fathom how something would happen does not mean that it can't happen. Obviously, we still have a lot to learn from this little planet revolving around a mundane star.

Lone Wolf8634

07-18-2012, 16:35

Well, I'm not sure who makes the rules for that.

Really? The logic of it should just reach out and slap you silly.

C'mon and think about it Doc, any self respecting deity needs to have a certain skill set. You know, things like omniscience and omnipotence? Maybe the ability to create entire universes in six days simply by saying "let there be light!". How 'bout the ability to step outside the natural order of what he created and view it from the outside in?

Basically, our deity needs "godlike powers" that are innate to his existence, without help of technology. And his existence should probly be eternal, it simply wont do to have a mortal deity.

If our supposed deity is, in any way, bound by the laws of nature, cursed with a finite lifespan or in need of technology for the powers he displays, then he can't have the job, he simply doesn't qualify as anything more than a more advanced alien.

It is a good question, where would you start looking for an answer?

Well, since nothing in any branch of science has turned up a reason to need a deity, everything seems to run just fine without the finger of a god poking around. I'd say there's no need to even look. But in the interest of fairness, lets take this one step at a time, using the method you described in another thread.

Ask a Question

In this case, the question would be "Is there a God who is responsible for all that we see?"

Do Background Research

All evidence to support the existence of such a being is purely anecdotal. Not one scientific clue has been unearthed in the entire history of mankind. If you wanna "find god" you must leave the field of science and journey into philosophy.

Construct a Hypothesis

Well, the whole purpose of this is to find out if there is a god, so he must have godlike qualities.

So the hypothesis might go like this:

There is a being of unlimited power, who is responsible for the creation of mankind, the earth, the galaxy and the entire universe.

Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

Well, as I understand it, any experiment worth it's salt is set up to test predictions based on your hypothesis, so what predictions could we make based on our hypothesis?

Well, here's where it all seems to break down. There really isn't a testable prediction we can make about an all powerful being. There is no experiment you could attempt, because you cant make any predictions from your hypothesis.

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

There is no data. A god is, by definition unknowable, untestable and undefinable. Therefore the entire concept is relegated back into the field of philosophy, where it belongs, and this entire exercise has been a futile waste of time.

Communicate Your Results

Through the scientific method it has been discovered the preponderance of evidence suggests that, at this time, the concept of a deity has as much evidence to support it as Superman. And unless any evidence comes along to change this, the entire idea should be left to philosophers and the clergy. Anyone with critical thinking skills should probably give this as much credence as any other fairy tale or myth, which is to say: None.

Gunhaver

07-18-2012, 18:21

Well, I'm not sure who makes the rules for that.

It is a good question, where would you start looking for an answer?

A creator of the universe as end all be all explanation for it's existence has to have end all be all power and especially has to have existed for all of time before the universe. In other words he needs to be immune somehow to the questions of who created him and what are the limits of his power. Ask anybody that believes in a particular god and they will tell you that their god has these very qualities even though they have no evidence of such and no way of knowing that. That's simply what their god was constructed to be because that's what they need him to be.

So, examining the physical universe and slowly working towards the answers or simply imagining exactly what's required to create it with no further explanation needed or possible, which system has a better chance of picking the correct door?

Snapper2

07-19-2012, 17:57

A creator of the universe as end all be all explanation for it's existence has to have end all be all power and especially has to have existed for all of time before the universe. In other words he needs to be immune somehow to the questions of who created him and what are the limits of his power. Ask anybody that believes in a particular god and they will tell you that their god has these very qualities even though they have no evidence of such and no way of knowing that. That's simply what their god was constructed to be because that's what they need him to be.

So, examining the physical universe and slowly working towards the answers or simply imagining exactly what's required to create it with no further explanation needed or possible, which system has a better chance of picking the correct door?
Or this Deity your denying would surely know that the only way we would know Him and have His character would be by His creation living by faith. Learning how the earth was formed by reading a science book pales in comparison of believing but not knowing how, but Who formed it. Faith is the evidence of things not seen but known just the same.Knowing is no longer faith but is it fact?It seems like we were left a trail of bread crumbs leading us to truth only to have our own knowledge eat the clues by our lack of faith. Instead of giving thanks and being thankful for the earth, we're full of pride and self centeredness of how we made the discoveries, almost as if we created it by leaving the Creator out.

Cavalry Doc

07-19-2012, 18:20

A creator of the universe as end all be all explanation for it's existence has to have end all be all power and especially has to have existed for all of time before the universe. In other words he needs to be immune somehow to the questions of who created him and what are the limits of his power. Ask anybody that believes in a particular god and they will tell you that their god has these very qualities even though they have no evidence of such and no way of knowing that. That's simply what their god was constructed to be because that's what they need him to be.

So, examining the physical universe and slowly working towards the answers or simply imagining exactly what's required to create it with no further explanation needed or possible, which system has a better chance of picking the correct door?

I think people need a deity to be what they need it to be to support their belief system. Even some atheists, as evidenced by your post.

Cavalry Doc

07-19-2012, 18:22

Or this Deity your denying would surely know that the only way we would know Him and have His character would be by His creation living by faith. Learning how the earth was formed by reading a science book pales in comparison of believing but not knowing how, but Who formed it. Faith is the evidence of things not seen but known just the same.Knowing is no longer faith but is it fact?It seems like we were left a trail of bread crumbs leading us to truth only to have our own knowledge eat the clues by our lack of faith. Instead of giving thanks and being thankful for the earth, we're full of pride and self centeredness of how we made the discoveries, almost as if we created it by leaving the Creator out.

Most of what most people know about science, they read on a screen, heard in a class, or read in a book. They have to trust that what they are being told is true.

High-Gear

07-19-2012, 18:22

Or this Deity your denying would surely know that the only way we would know Him and have His character would be by His creation living by faith. Learning how the earth was formed by reading a science book pales in comparison of believing but not knowing how, but Who formed it. Faith is the evidence of things not seen but known just the same.Knowing is no longer faith but is it fact?It seems like we were left a trail of bread crumbs leading us to truth only to have our own knowledge eat the clues by our lack of faith. Instead of giving thanks and being thankful for the earth, we're full of pride and self centeredness of how we made the discoveries, almost as if we created it by leaving the Creator out.

The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin.

Faith is believing what you know aint true - Mark Twain

Unfortunately you seem to think faith is a virtue. Believing the stories bronze age herders made up to explain the scary parts of the world which surrounded them, and denying the advancements we have made seems silly to me. Then again I think we created the creator in our image, before he created us.

Cavalry Doc

07-19-2012, 18:33

Really? The logic of it should just reach out and slap you silly.

C'mon and think about it Doc, any self respecting deity needs to have a certain skill set. You know, things like omniscience and omnipotence? Maybe the ability to create entire universes in six days simply by saying "let there be light!". How 'bout the ability to step outside the natural order of what he created and view it from the outside in?

Basically, our deity needs "godlike powers" that are innate to his existence, without help of technology. And his existence should probly be eternal, it simply wont do to have a mortal deity.

If our supposed deity is, in any way, bound by the laws of nature, cursed with a finite lifespan or in need of technology for the powers he displays, then he can't have the job, he simply doesn't qualify as anything more than a more advanced alien.

Well, since nothing in any branch of science has turned up a reason to need a deity, everything seems to run just fine without the finger of a god poking around. I'd say there's no need to even look. But in the interest of fairness, lets take this one step at a time, using the method you described in another thread.

Ask a Question

In this case, the question would be "Is there a God who is responsible for all that we see?"

Do Background Research

All evidence to support the existence of such a being is purely anecdotal. Not one scientific clue has been unearthed in the entire history of mankind. If you wanna "find god" you must leave the field of science and journey into philosophy.

Construct a Hypothesis

Well, the whole purpose of this is to find out if there is a god, so he must have godlike qualities.

So the hypothesis might go like this:

There is a being of unlimited power, who is responsible for the creation of mankind, the earth, the galaxy and the entire universe.

Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

Well, as I understand it, any experiment worth it's salt is set up to test predictions based on your hypothesis, so what predictions could we make based on our hypothesis?

Well, here's where it all seems to break down. There really isn't a testable prediction we can make about an all powerful being. There is no experiment you could attempt, because you cant make any predictions from your hypothesis.

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

There is no data. A god is, by definition unknowable, untestable and undefinable. Therefore the entire concept is relegated back into the field of philosophy, where it belongs, and this entire exercise has been a futile waste of time.

Communicate Your Results

Through the scientific method it has been discovered the preponderance of evidence suggests that, at this time, the concept of a deity has as much evidence to support it as Superman. And unless any evidence comes along to change this, the entire idea should be left to philosophers and the clergy. Anyone with critical thinking skills should probably give this as much credence as any other fairy tale or myth, which is to say: None.

Very humorous. But I'm afraid research like that would not stand up to well to peer review. You started with assumption, which was treated as fact, then moved to your question.......

Still funny. I liked it.

High-Gear

07-19-2012, 18:36

Most of what most people know about science, they read on a screen, heard in a class, or read in a book. They have to trust that what they are being told is true.

Or this Deity your denying would surely know that the only way we would know Him and have His character would be by His creation living by faith. Learning how the earth was formed by reading a science book pales in comparison of believing but not knowing how, but Who formed it. Faith is the evidence of things not seen but known just the same.Knowing is no longer faith but is it fact?It seems like we were left a trail of bread crumbs leading us to truth only to have our own knowledge eat the clues by our lack of faith. Instead of giving thanks and being thankful for the earth, we're full of pride and self centeredness of how we made the discoveries, almost as if we created it by leaving the Creator out.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this entire post, especially the bold, seems to suggest that it is somehow better to live in ignorance rather than risk knowledge at the expense of religion. It suggests, to me, that we should be satisfied with the explanations given us in a time when it was still believed that the Earth was the center of all creation and disease was thought to be a punishment of a god.

The italicized suggests that our curiosity is the epitome of hubris because we dare to stop gazing in wonder at the world and actually strive to understand what it is and how it works.

Both attitudes are exactly why Atheists continue to say that religion is a detriment to knowledge.

Cavalry Doc

07-19-2012, 18:40

The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin.

Faith is believing what you know aint true - Mark Twain

Unfortunately you seem to think faith is a virtue. Believing the stories bronze age herders made up to explain the scary parts of the world which surrounded them, and denying the advancements we have made seems silly to me. Then again I think we created the creator in our image, before he created us.

Well, at least you gave faith fair treatment....:upeyes:

Honestly, if faith is comforting to someone, and does you no harm, why take pleasure in trying to crush it. Everyone technically has faith in many things.

Most of the scientific knowledge that most people know, they learned from others. Most of us do not have time to conduct all of the experiments ourselves in order to gain this knowledge first hand. Standing on the shoulders of those before us..... So, when things make sense, we believe it. It's faith. Modern existence is permeated with faith in many things.

Lone Wolf8634

07-19-2012, 18:41

Very humorous. But I'm afraid research like that would not stand up to well to peer review. You started with assumption, which was treated as fact, then moved to your question.......

Still funny. I liked it.

You are correct, it would never stand up to peer review, because it starts with a question that does not need to be asked, from a purely scientific standpoint.

Snapper2

07-19-2012, 18:46

The way to see faith is to shut the eye of reason - Benjamin Franklin.

Faith is believing what you know aint true - Mark Twain

Unfortunately you seem to think faith is a virtue. Believing the stories bronze age herders made up to explain the scary parts of the world which surrounded them, and denying the advancements we have made seems silly to me. Then again I think we created the creator in our image, before he created us.
:whistling: "to be or not to be/to thy ownself be true" Shakespeare

"to each his own" .......this is how i see it and thats how you see it. I'll respect your point of view. But whos denying advancements? Only pointing out the denial of God which by the way is your right.

Lone Wolf8634

07-19-2012, 18:48

Well, at least you gave faith fair treatment....:upeyes:

Honestly, if faith is comforting to someone, and does you no harm, why take pleasure in trying to crush it. Everyone technically has faith in many things.

Most of the scientific knowledge that most people know, they learned from others. Most of us do not have time to conduct all of the experiments ourselves in order to gain this knowledge first hand. Standing on the shoulders of those before us..... So, when things make sense, we believe it. It's faith. Modern existence is permeated with faith in many things.

Yes, but the technology and science we have "faith" in, is knowable. Its accessible to if you wish to learn it. You can do as I have chosen to do, research, and educate yourself. Religious faith, on the other hand, requires willful ignorance and a willingness to disregard opposing ideas until you have no choice but to accept them. Not all Theists do this, but enough that it would seem to be a problem.

Snapper2

07-19-2012, 18:59

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this entire post, especially the bold, seems to suggest that it is somehow better to live in ignorance rather than risk knowledge at the expense of religion. It suggests, to me, that we should be satisfied with the explanations given us in a time when it was still believed that the Earth was the center of all creation and disease was thought to be a punishment of a god.

The italicized suggests that our curiosity is the epitome of hubris because we dare to stop gazing in wonder at the world and actually strive to understand what it is and how it works.

Both attitudes are exactly why Atheists continue to say that religion is a detriment to knowledge.
Sorry you took it take way. It means the Creator gives knowledge of Himself by what He creates only to be snubbed by those not searching for Him but instead knowledge.Anything wrong with both? So why should He leave more tracks to be denied? He chose faith to reveal Himself individually to all. Not religion. Why search for coal when you can have diamonds?

Cavalry Doc

07-19-2012, 18:59

You are correct, it would never stand up to peer review, because it starts with a question that does not need to be asked, from a purely scientific standpoint.

Oh, if you wanted a thorough critical review, I could have given you one, and there were several problems with your application of the method. But I saw the humor in it, and appreciated it for what it was.

Yes, but the technology and science we have "faith" in, is knowable. Its accessible to if you wish to learn it. You can do as I have chosen to do, research, and educate yourself. Religious faith, on the other hand, requires willful ignorance and a willingness to disregard opposing ideas until you have no choice but to accept them. Not all Theists do this, but enough that it would seem to be a problem.

Is it? Then science would never make mistakes, because the instruments would always be correct.

What kind of instruments did they use to detect Higgs-Boson? How do you know for sure the instruments are telling you what is happening, and not just what they are designed to tell you? Are they working properly?

I heard on the radio (WSJ Radio IIRC) that even using the instruments they have, that it's like looking for an extinct snow leopard print within 70 other animal prints on the same exact piece of snow. We are limited still by our technology.....

That's the fun part, there is always more to learn.

High-Gear

07-19-2012, 19:11

Well, at least you gave faith fair treatment....:upeyes:

Honestly, if faith is comforting to someone, and does you no harm, why take pleasure in trying to crush it. Everyone technically has faith in many things.

Most of the scientific knowledge that most people know, they learned from others. Most of us do not have time to conduct all of the experiments ourselves in order to gain this knowledge first hand. Standing on the shoulders of those before us..... So, when things make sense, we believe it. It's faith. Modern existence is permeated with faith in many things.

Yes, we stand on the shoulders of giants. We can not individually redo all of the experiments which have been done before, however when the previous data fails we throw it out. However there are those who would push mythology over science and use "faith" as an excuse. I took the previous quoted entry as a statement of faith being more important than science. That is why I felt the need to speak up.

So if a lot of people believe it, it must be true? Especially if it appears in a TRUSTED text?
Now that is a slippery slope.

What I am simply pointing out, that a lot of what we as individuals "know", we have not tested ourselves. We still choose to trust that what we are told is true.

P.S. Does "to trust" make you more comfortable than "have faith" in the last sentence?

Think about why for a moment.

Lone Wolf8634

07-19-2012, 19:17

Is it? Then science would never make mistakes, because the instruments would always be correct.

What kind of instruments did they use to detect Higgs-Boson? How do you know for sure the instruments are telling you what is happening, and not just what they are designed to tell you? Are they working properly?

I heard on the radio (WSJ Radio IIRC) that even using the instruments they have, that it's like looking for an extinct snow leopard print within 70 other animal prints on the same exact piece of snow. We are limited still by our technology.....

That's the fun part, there is always more to learn.

I think you missed the point.

You don't need to have "faith" in science or technology. It's simply knowledge that can be learned if you choose to do so.

The fact that we know some it may be flawed and in need of refinement, or even disposal in favor of a new theory seems to me to be the polar opposite of "faith".

High-Gear

07-19-2012, 19:19

So if a lot of people believe it, it must be true? Especially if it appears in a TRUSTED text?
Now that is a slippery slope.

What I am simply pointing out, that a lot of what we as individuals "know", we have not tested ourselves. We still choose to trust that what we are told is true.

P.S. Does "to trust" make you more comfortable than "have faith" in the last sentence?

Think about why for a moment.
The key element which was left out is peer reviewed. You see it has to be repeatable and verifiable, and stand the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Religion has no such level of proof, they only have faith.

In the peer review process, if data is found to be in error it is discarded. Various religions has been found to be full of errors and contradictions, yet people still cling to cling to them.

Two completely different animals.

Lone Wolf8634

07-19-2012, 19:25

So if a lot of people believe it, it must be true? Especially if it appears in a TRUSTED text?
Now that is a slippery slope.

What I am simply pointing out, that a lot of what we as individuals "know", we have not tested ourselves. We still choose to trust that what we are told is true.

P.S. Does "to trust" make you more comfortable than "have faith" in the last sentence?

Think about why for a moment.

I take no issue with anything you say here. It's all true, I haven't chosen to educate myself on many things that I trust are true.

ETA: I do take issue on the statement of "trusted text". I think the standard for a "trusted text" is :sarcasm on: just a bit higher :sarcasm off: for peer reviewed science findings.

But,

If I chose to do so the knowledge is out there, available at any time for me to acquire, I KNOW that if I had the curiosity to do so, I could learn anything I want to about how a computer works. But I dont need to, because, right here in front of me is a working computer. So do I have faith that computers do what they do, or do I know it?

While a subject such as particle physics may be a bit more abstract, the knowledge is still there with no need to take it on faith.

Cavalry Doc

07-19-2012, 19:26

The key element which was left out is peer reviewed. You see it has to be repeatable and verifiable, and stand the scrutiny of other experts in the field. Religion has no such level of proof, they only have faith.

Yes they are different, but have a few things in common too. Both are beliefs that require trust.

Yes, but one is blind trust.

ETA: The other is "trust, but verify"

Do you not see the difference?

Cavalry Doc

07-19-2012, 19:32

I take no issue with anything you say here. It's all true, I haven't chosen to educate myself on many things that I trust are true.

But,

If I chose to do so the knowledge is out there, available at any time for me to acquire, I KNOW that if I had the curiosity to do so, I could learn anything I want to about how a computer works. But I dont need to, because, right here in front of me is a working computer. So do I have faith that computers do what they do, or do I know it?

While a subject such as particle physics may be a bit more abstract, the knowledge is still there with no need to take it on faith.

With what I have been taught, I couldn't repeat the research and experiments with a staff of 1000 in my lifetime. So, for expediency's sake, we have to trust if we want to get the work we need to get done finished.

Trust and faith are rather similar though. Now, if you replace "faith" with "trust", it's easier to accept, isn't it.

Interesting....

Cavalry Doc

07-19-2012, 19:34

Yes, but one is blind trust.

ETA: The other is "trust, but verify"

Do you not see the difference?

Better get started on that supercollider now then. I can lend you a shovel if it will help.

Walt_NC

07-19-2012, 19:37

Imagine you are dead. Imagine that one day you suddenly are awaken from your tomb beneath the ground. Imagine that you are looking around and others are standing there with you looking upwards. A Great Light shines down from the Heavens and you wonder what this could be. You suddenly remember that you died after suffering in a hospital bed for so long a time. "What is happening". You say to yourself. "This can't be"!

For you, maybe. My first response would be to look at all of the folks stuck underground with me and ask "Hey, any of you *******s got a shovel?"

Lone Wolf8634

07-19-2012, 19:39

With what I have been taught, I couldn't repeat the research and experiments with a staff of 1000 in my lifetime. So, for expediency's sake, we have to trust if we want to get the work we need to get done finished.

Trust and faith are rather similar though. Now, if you replace "faith" with "trust", it's easier to accept, isn't it.

Interesting....

Correct, no one can know all there is to know, even in a specific field. And science would grind to a halt if everyone insisted on discovering for themselves that which has been proven time and time again.

Yet you still cannot equate "trust", used in this context, with "faith" as used in Theism.

Lone Wolf8634

07-19-2012, 19:41

Better get started on that supercollider now then. I can lend you a shovel if it will help.

Why? I have no problem with "trusting" the scientists. Again, not "have faith" in them, but trust in the process.

Yes they are different, but have a few things in common too. Both are beliefs that require trust.

Funny. How were these fakers caught, the peer review process. They were found to be wrong and their data was discarded.

Whats the problem? Now lets start looking at everything religious dogma has gotten wrong...what do you wish to start discarding first?

Cavalry Doc

07-19-2012, 19:57

Correct, no one can know all there is to know, even in a specific field. And science would grind to a halt if everyone insisted on discovering for themselves that which has been proven time and time again.

Yet you still cannot equate "trust", used in this context, with "faith" as used in Theism.

Why can't I. They are synonymous.

Not in all ways, but in the blind trusting and belief thing, it kinda sorta is dead on accurate. Of course the data being trusted will be different, and treated by different people in different ways, according to their own feelings and opinions.

The world would grind to a halt if we demanded to learn everything for ourselves.

So, in some ways, even atheistic scientists have to agree with the fact that the entire world benefits daily from widespread faith. Cool concept huh. :cool:

Cavalry Doc

07-19-2012, 20:12

Funny. How were these fakers caught, the peer review process. They were found to be wrong and their data was discarded.

Whats the problem? Now lets start looking at everything religious dogma has gotten wrong...what do you wish to start discarding first?

Not a size near enough for a good representative sample, but 33% of the frauds found, were discovered because of an apparent lack of loyalty.

Integrity, not all humans have it.

rgregoryb

07-19-2012, 20:58

perception is reality, if you need a God....you will have one

Lone Wolf8634

07-19-2012, 21:23

Why can't I. They are synonymous.

Not in all ways, but in the blind trusting and belief thing, it kinda sorta is dead on accurate. Of course the data being trusted will be different, and treated by different people in different ways, according to their own feelings and opinions.

The world would grind to a halt if we demanded to learn everything for ourselves.

So, in some ways, even atheistic scientists have to agree with the fact that the entire world benefits daily from widespread faith. Cool concept huh. :cool:

So you say trusting data from sources that can easily be verified, data that would gleefully be be exposed as false at the earliest opportunity, is the same as having faith in information from a source that is unverifiable, untestable and in many cases, too fantastical to be readily believed.

In both cases your gonna use the same word to define both: Faith.

I submit that your problem with literal definitions is rearing it's head again.

ETA: I guess I'm arguing about the degree of "trust" or "faith" required.

Not a size near enough for a good representative sample, but 33% of the frauds found, were discovered because of an apparent lack of loyalty.

Integrity, not all humans have it.
Dipak Das - “remains employed by the UConn Health Center pending dismissal proceedings per university bylaws"
Andrew Wakefield: peer review
Woo Suk Hwang: anonymous tip discredited within the same year
Dr. Roger Poisson: Audit US Office of Research Integrity (poisson did not misrepresent his results, but altered previous medical records of patients to make more women elligable for testing in order to increase his sample size. While wrong this does not negate his findings, which were later verrified by other scientists)
The “Baltimore Case”: peer review - Researchers later Exonerated
Charles Dawson: carbon dating, 41 years later fraud from 1912, yet still the process works!

How do you get 33% were due to a lack of loyalty? Only one was from a tip or (whistle blower), but still this shows the overall integrity of the scientific community.
This article claims these were the "Most Spectacular Scientific Falls From Grace" yet they were easily detected and discarded. This is why I trust science!

G23Gen4TX

07-19-2012, 23:03

Imagine Gunhaver is very sick and eventually dies. The next thing Gunhaver sees is waking up and being greeted by Adolf Hitler, Sadam Hussein and Barach Obama...:shocked:

Yeah...makes ya think, huh?

Great opportunity to kick two arses!

Cavalry Doc

07-20-2012, 06:45

Dipak Das - “remains employed by the UConn Health Center pending dismissal proceedings per university bylaws"
Andrew Wakefield: peer review
Woo Suk Hwang: anonymous tip discredited within the same year
Dr. Roger Poisson: Audit US Office of Research Integrity (poisson did not misrepresent his results, but altered previous medical records of patients to make more women elligable for testing in order to increase his sample size. While wrong this does not negate his findings, which were later verrified by other scientists)
The “Baltimore Case”: peer review - Researchers later Exonerated
Charles Dawson: carbon dating, 41 years later fraud from 1912, yet still the process works!

How do you get 33% were due to a lack of loyalty? Only one was from a tip or (whistle blower), but still this shows the overall integrity of the scientific community.
This article claims these were the "Most Spectacular Scientific Falls From Grace" yet they were easily detected and discarded. This is why I trust science!

Anonymous tips don't come from loyal followers. Let's not forget the whole MMGW debacle, an ongoing saga. The scientific method is less than perfect, because humans are not perfect. I usually trust science too. But when eggs are good, bad, then good again, you have to be skeptical of what you are being told.

As far as Poisson goes, a break in protocols for patient selection called into question his findings. Ya gotta stick to the protocol if your findings are going to be valid. A change in the patients getting the treatments alters the available conclusions. Sound like he had good intentions, and there are old sayings about good intentions...

High-Gear

07-20-2012, 09:30

. Let's not forget the whole MMGW debacle, an ongoing saga. ...

yes, lets not forget they were exonerated. Oh, but Fox news did not cover that!

You said they were exonerated. Your link is about one single Gentleman in Pennsylvania. What about all those European fellows?

High-Gear

07-20-2012, 14:47

You said they were exonerated. Your link is about one single Gentleman in Pennsylvania. What about all those European fellows?

IIRC the brits email was hacked, but only scientists from NOAA were in question. Both the US and UK investigated and everyone was exonerated.
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/2002539/climategate_scientists_exonerated/

Cavalry Doc

07-20-2012, 15:08

I found some recent info, evidently they were unethical, but their science was supported?????!??

Why ask why God doesn't do this or that when science does not either? Science has become a religion for many...although it is denied.

Maybe if you guys stopped claiming that god was responsible for all of those things then people would stop asking why he doesn't handle them better. That's the thing that you willfully ignore.

Science has some answers for climate change and pain if you're willing to listen, suffering to a lesser extent and they're working on the death issue. Science has made many people rich, just ask Bill Gates if he prayed for all that he has or maybe did some research and experimentation instead. And I think you'd find a sudden surplus of people with nothing to live for if all of the science suddenly disappeared tomorrow.

Cavalry Doc

07-20-2012, 21:25

Unethical in not fully complying with freedom of information act requests, and not openly sharing data with other researchers. That does not make their findings wrong.

caught researchers at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit discussing ways to dodge right-to-know requests, keep opponents' research out of peer-reviewed journals, and destroy data. The unguarded and occasionally unprofessional messages dented the reputation of several researchers
http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?&pageType=general&catid=57475008&feed_id=999&videofeed=999&nb_splitPage=0

So is it "trust but verify" OR "trust and cover" ???!!!??

Lone Wolf8634

07-20-2012, 22:07

So is it "trust but verify" OR "trust and cover" ???!!!??

Huh. At the very least, the story is there for you to read, their actions were brought to the light of day for their peers to decide if what they did was or wasn't "good" science.

Yet, you keep complaining that this system doesn't work, and illustrate your point by the fact that nutritionists can't decide if eggs are good for you or not?

Tell ya what, soon as you prove General Relativity is wrong, or can actually hold your own in a conversation with Devildog about particle physics, I'll give your opinion on the failings of the scientific method a bit more credibility, till then, you, just like me, are talking out the wrong body orifice.

Cavalry Doc

07-21-2012, 08:04

I never said the system doesn't work, I said it was imperfect.

Why don't you set about proving its perfection instead, or at least respond to the points I did make, as opposed to the points you imagined I was making.

High-Gear

07-21-2012, 08:41

I never said the system doesn't work, I said it was imperfect.

Why don't you set about proving its perfection instead, or at least respond to the points I did make, as opposed to the points you imagined I was making.

Interesting, you use examples of the system working to expose fraud as an example of how imperfect the system is?

No one said the researchers were not human and susceptible to taking shortcuts, or masaging data, or simply making a mistake. The system of peer review weeds them out and does a very good job of it.

Your examples proved that point for us.

steveksux

07-21-2012, 09:28

I'm pretty surprised (well, not really) at the mental gymnastics that some people will go through to maintain that god or no god, both are equally valid propositions because neither can be proven with any certainty. Hypothetically speaking, of course, that would be like making the argument that CD is just as likely to be a leprechaun as RI's resident troll because you can't prove he isn't a leprechaun. :rofl:

Which of these theories should be taught in science class?

Randy

Cavalry Doc

07-21-2012, 13:07

Interesting, you use examples of the system working to expose fraud as an example of how imperfect the system is?

No one said the researchers were not human and susceptible to taking shortcuts, or masaging data, or simply making a mistake. The system of peer review weeds them out and does a very good job of it.

Your examples proved that point for us.

And you are sure that 100% of the fraud has been discovered??!! That's an awful lot of faith.

On occasion, there are just simple mistakes.

http://m.discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders

Science is good, probably even excellent, but not perfect. That's all that I was saying. Maybe this discussion would better fit in the "sacred" thread??

Don't believe everything you read. People screw up often.

High-Gear

07-21-2012, 13:53

And you are sure that 100% of the fraud has been discovered??!! That's an awful lot of faith.

On occasion, there are just simple mistakes.

http://m.discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders

Science is good, probably even excellent, but not perfect. That's all that I was saying. Maybe this discussion would better fit in the "sacred" thread??

Don't believe everything you read. People screw up often.

No one said people didnt scew up, however you seem to infer "trusting" what science teaches us, if there is possibility of error, is somehow equvalent to religious "faith".

Lone Wolf8634

07-21-2012, 16:30

No one said people didnt scew up, however you seem to infer "trusting" what science teaches us, if there is possibility of error, is somehow equvalent to religious "faith".

Seems thats what he wants it to be.

He knows what we mean when we say "trust science" as opposed to "have faith in a god"

But he'll tie himself in knots to rationalize making the two synonymous.

Seems familiar somehow.....

Kingarthurhk

07-21-2012, 17:48

Maybe we haven't conquered "sin" yet because as a soceity we are still clinging to an ancient and archaic definition of it?

So, you conquer a problem by surrendering and giving up? If that were the case we should all be speaking a medley of Queen's British, French, Spanish, Japanese and German.

High-Gear

07-21-2012, 20:08

So, you conquer a problem by surrendering and giving up? If that were the case we should all be speaking a medley of Queen's British, French, Spanish, Japanese and German.

I think he is referring to the littany of things considered "sin" in the bible which are really BS. We wouldn't have capitalism if coveting goods were really a sin. Thought crimes are not truly a sin. Homosexuality, or premarital sex is not a sin. Self pleasure, and sex for plesure is not a sin. Eating pork, shellfish, and such is not a sin. Working on the sabbath, using the lords name in vain, and not honoring your parrents are not sins. Having pride in one's accomplishments, being lazy, and being angry are not sins.

I would say being greedy is a sin, but those in the top 1% and most republicans would disagree.

So you see if we redefing what sin is, and get rid of the archaic definitions you will see we have conquered most of the biblical sins since they were crap to begin with.:supergrin:

Cavalry Doc

07-22-2012, 06:27

No one said people didnt scew up, however you seem to infer "trusting" what science teaches us, if there is possibility of error, is somehow equvalent to religious "faith".

So could we agree they are not exactly the same, only similar?

Being skeptical isn't a bad thing. Science is cool, no doubt about it, I'd just keep a critical outlook and not treat everything you are taught as sacred.

steveksux

07-22-2012, 07:28

So could we agree they are not exactly the same, only similar?Like hockey in Canada and religion?

Randy

Geko45

07-22-2012, 09:10

So could we agree they are not exactly the same, only similar?

Sure, as similar as faith can be to reason which is, of course, not at all.

Being skeptical isn't a bad thing. Science is cool, no doubt about it, I'd just keep a critical outlook and not treat everything you are taught as sacred.

What you keep glossing over is skepticism is an integral part of reason.

Animal Mother

07-23-2012, 00:44

And you are sure that 100% of the fraud has been discovered??!! That's an awful lot of faith.

On occasion, there are just simple mistakes.

http://m.discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders

Science is good, probably even excellent, but not perfect. That's all that I was saying. Maybe this discussion would better fit in the "sacred" thread??

Don't believe everything you read. People screw up often.
Are you really arguing that we should never accept anything because it might be shown to be wrong someday? Do you apply that kind of thinking to the medical care you provide, or lack of care I suppose since any actual care might turn out to be fraudulent at some point.

Animal Mother

07-23-2012, 00:48

Being skeptical isn't a bad thing. No, it isn't. Veiling absurd objections behind a curtain of hyperskepticism about specific topics is a bad thing though. It's odd that you continually claim to be an agnostic, yet also constantly employee the tactics of the creationsist/ID supporters. Why do you suppose that is?
Science is cool, no doubt about it, I'd just keep a critical outlook and not treat everything you are taught as sacred. Do you occasionally step off the side of tall buildings, just to avoid being accused of treating gravity as if it were sacred?

Blast

07-23-2012, 03:15

So could we agree they are not exactly the same, only similar?

Being skeptical isn't a bad thing. Science is cool, no doubt about it, I'd just keep a critical outlook and not treat everything you are taught as sacred.
Stick to your guns, Doc.
I being a man of science know it's strengths and weaknesses, successes, and failings.
Interesting vid.

Science v's God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube

Cavalry Doc

07-23-2012, 05:30

No, it isn't. Veiling absurd objections behind a curtain of hyperskepticism about specific topics is a bad thing though. It's odd that you continually claim to be an agnostic, yet also constantly employee the tactics of the creationsist/ID supporters. Why do you suppose that is?
Do you occasionally step off the side of tall buildings, just to avoid being accused of treating gravity as if it were sacred?

I have personal evidence that gravity exists. The whole question as to whether a god exists, existed, or not, is a little skimpy in the evidence department. To equate your belief that there has never been a deity is not nearly as well supported, to me at leas, as gravity. Do you see the flaw in your analogy?

hyperskepticism? interesting. It's OK to question, at least for me. But if you want to unquestioningly accept everything you read, as long as it comes from a source you like, that's fine with me. You have every right to be blindly faithful. As long as it brings harmony to your life, I'm OK with it.

Cavalry Doc

07-23-2012, 05:43

Are you really arguing that we should never accept anything because it might be shown to be wrong someday? Do you apply that kind of thinking to the medical care you provide, or lack of care I suppose since any actual care might turn out to be fraudulent at some point.

Nope,. I'm saying you should realize that there are a lot of things that most people think they know, but really, only believe in.

As far as the medical care, absolutely. You act and react to the patient's condition, constantly re-evaluating. There were things I learned from books that did not work in the field. A quick example. Tourniquets. You don't have to leave them on once they are place, which used to be a cardinal rule. You can slap one on, finish whatever fight you are in, dress the wound, then release the tourniquet and assess whether it is still needed or not. Traumatic amputations from blast, don't bleed a lot. Not much at all actually. Those you can dress with a bulky compressive dressing, place the tourniquet loosely proximal to the injury, and if blood shows though the dressing, tighten it up then. When I went to school, the book said to put on a tourniquet, which I have never found necessary in blast related traumatic amputations. I could always get them into surgery before the vasculature relaxed and they started bleeding, it takes a few to several hours for that to happen.

In medicine, it is not unusual to find out that the science was headed in the wrong direction, and to have to change course based on new discoveries and new capabilities. LARGE retrospective studies occasionally find surprising results.

What's the point you are trying to make about fraud?

Don't beat around the bush, go ahead and spit it out.

:popcorn:

Animal Mother

07-23-2012, 06:12

I have personal evidence that gravity exists. Do you have personal evidence that gravity functions at all times in all frames of reference? Do you have personal evidence that gravity will continue to function in the same way 10 minutes from now?
The whole question as to whether a god exists, existed, or not, is a little skimpy in the evidence department. But that isn't what you're discussing here.
To equate your belief that there has never been a deity is not nearly as well supported, to me at leas, as gravity. Do you see the flaw in your analogy? I'm not talking about deities, I'm talking about your claim, "Being skeptical isn't a bad thing. Science is cool, no doubt about it, I'd just keep a critical outlook and not treat everything you are taught as sacred." I'm simply asking why you treat gravity as if it were sacred and not other areas of imperfect science.
hyperskepticism? interesting. It's OK to question, at least for me. But if you want to unquestioningly accept everything you read, as long as it comes from a source you like, that's fine with me. You have every right to be blindly faithful. As long as it brings harmony to your life, I'm OK with it.When you have to resort to inventing my position for me, you demonstrate how weak your own claims truly are. I'll understand if you now choose to abandon this discussion, as you so often have in the past, but the question remains. Why accept a documented phenomenon like gravity without questioning or testing it but continue to question other equally proven aspects of science?

Animal Mother

07-23-2012, 06:19

Nope,. I'm saying you should realize that there are a lot of things that most people think they know, but really, only believe in. Luckily, we have evidence to answer those questions. Will you be sharing any for your position, any time soon?
As far as the medical care, absolutely. You act and react to the patient's condition, constantly re-evaluating. How can you possibly do that? What if the patient's condition presents as, for example, an ulcer, but is in fact the work of stomach trolls? What is the treatment for stomach trolls?
There were things I learned from books that did not work in the field. A quick example. Tourniquets. You don't have to leave them on once they are place, which used to be a cardinal rule. You can slap one on, finish whatever fight you are in, dress the wound, then release the tourniquet and assess whether it is still needed or not. Traumatic amputations from blast, don't bleed a lot. Not much at all actually. Those you can dress with a bulky compressive dressing, place the tourniquet loosely proximal to the injury, and if blood shows though the dressing, tighten it up then. When I went to school, the book said to put on a tourniquet, which I have never found necessary in blast related traumatic amputations. I could always get them into surgery before the vasculature relaxed and they started bleeding, it takes a few to several hours for that to happen. Is your personal experience authoritative? How do we know that these case studies are not fraudulent?
In medicine, it is not unusual to find out that the science was headed in the wrong direction, and to have to change course based on new discoveries and new capabilities. LARGE retrospective studies occasionally find surprising results. In other words, changes are made based on new evidence. What should be done until that evidence is discovered?
What's the point you are trying to make about fraud? I'm making the point that if you're going to cite possibly fraud as a reason to disbelieve something without any contrary evidence, the same accusation could be made in any possible endeavor.

Cavalry Doc

07-23-2012, 06:49

Luckily, we have evidence to answer those questions. Will you be sharing any for your position, any time soon?

Which position?

How can you possibly do that? What if the patient's condition presents as, for example, an ulcer, but is in fact the work of stomach trolls? What is the treatment for stomach trolls?

When I see trolls on an EGD, I'll figure something out. Interesting you should choose ulcers. They used to be attributed to stress and bad diets, we now know a lot of them are atrributed to a previously undiscovered bacterium, helicobacter pylori. Prevpac, a combination therapy with two antibiotics and a proton pump inhibitor works reasonably well, but you still have to test for cure with either a stool antigen test or a breath test. There are some links to gastric cancer with prolonged infections, so you have to document eradication.

Is your personal experience authoritative? How do we know that these case studies are not fraudulent?
In other words, changes are made based on new evidence. What should be done until that evidence is discovered?

Actually, the example of retrospective study, is one of a reevaluation of OLD evidence.

I'm making the point that if you're going to cite possibly fraud as a reason to disbelieve something without any contrary evidence, the same accusation could be made in any possible endeavor.

Sometimes, you go with what you have. That should not keep you from keeping an open mind.

I don't have the time to teach you about medical practice, but reevaluation should be constant, and you have to keep in mind that some treatments and medication will have a paradoxical reactions in some people. Benzodiazepines, sedatives, can make a few patients hyper. Sometimes, the patient changes, best bet is to keep looking, and reassess your plan frequently.
So far that seems to be a good approach, I've never killed anyone by accident.

Animal Mother

07-23-2012, 07:41

Which position? Pick one, though this new "Science is fallible, thus we should always question every aspect of it all the time, except the parts I, Cavalry Doc, personally accept" does seem interesting.
When I see trolls on an EGD, I'll figure something out. How can you trust an EGD? Do only things that appear on an EGD exist?
Interesting you should choose ulcers. They used to be attributed to stress and bad diets, we now know a lot of them are atrributed to a previously undiscovered bacterium, helicobacter pylori. Prevpac, a combination therapy with two antibiotics and a proton pump inhibitor works reasonably well, but you still have to test for cure with either a stool antigen test or a breath test. There are some links to gastric cancer with prolonged infections, so you have to document eradication. Perhaps that deals with some ulcers, but what about those caused by stomach trolls? Stomach trolls aren't susceptible to antibiotics.
Actually, the example of retrospective study, is one of a reevaluation of OLD evidence. Like fossils you mean? But weren't you just arguing that if evidence is reevaluated, that demonstrates the initial science was wrong and thus we must be skeptical of all science?
Sometimes, you go with what you have. That should not keep you from keeping an open mind. But you don't appear to be open minded about gravity. Why the double standard?
I don't have the time to teach you about medical practice, but reevaluation should be constant, and you have to keep in mind that some treatments and medication will have a paradoxical reactions in some people. I don't have time to teach you physics or genetics, but you appear to have declared yourself an authority on those two topics, among others.
Benzodiazepines, sedatives, can make a few patients hyper. Sometimes, the patient changes, best bet is to keep looking, and reassess your plan frequently.
So far that seems to be a good approach, I've never killed anyone by accident.So your blind luck has held out so far. Why should we think that streak will continue?

Syclone538

07-23-2012, 09:20

Stick to your guns, Doc.
I being a man of science know it's strengths and weaknesses, successes, and failings.
Interesting vid.

Science v's God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4mB9GKY&feature=related)

I know that's Pink Floyd in the last 30 seconds, but I can't figure out what song.

Cavalry Doc

07-23-2012, 09:40

Pick one, though this new "Science is fallible, thus we should always question every aspect of it all the time, except the parts I, Cavalry Doc, personally accept" does seem interesting.

You are intentionally exaggerating my position. That may make it easier for you, but it's a straw man argument.

How can you trust an EGD? Do only things that appear on an EGD exist?

You do have to consider the specificity, sensitivity, limitations of the equipment and the expertise of the examiner.

Perhaps that deals with some ulcers, but what about those caused by stomach trolls? Stomach trolls aren't susceptible to antibiotics.

Ok. So what's the point you are trying to make?

Like fossils you mean? But weren't you just arguing that if evidence is reevaluated, that demonstrates the initial science was wrong and thus we must be skeptical of all science?

Not at all, but there is a healthy level of skepticism. It does not have to be taken to the level of absurdity, as you appear to be attempting.

But you don't appear to be open minded about gravity. Why the double standard?

Life is full of little inconsistencies. Especially when you try to turn skepticism about some things to pretend that must be equally applied to all things. I'm not the one that has a problem with gravity, you are.

I don't have time to teach you physics or genetics, but you appear to have declared yourself an authority on those two topics, among others.
Really??? When?

So your blind luck has held out so far. Why should we think that streak will continue?

Why would you think it has anything to do with blind luck? There is a bit of skill involved.

Animal Mother

07-23-2012, 22:15

You are intentionally exaggerating my position. That may make it easier for you, but it's a straw man argument. Then please correct me and explicitly state your position.
You do have to consider the specificity, sensitivity, limitations of the equipment and the expertise of the examiner. Granted, now could you answer the question?
Ok. So what's the point you are trying to make? You're failing to take into account at least one potential cause of stomach ulcers. How do you explain this failure to fully care for your patients?
Not at all, but there is a healthy level of skepticism. It does not have to be taken to the level of absurdity, as you appear to be attempting. But that's exactly what you're doing in arguing that since we haven't yet found fraud in some scientific findings we should behave as if we will find such fraud in the future.
Life is full of little inconsistencies. Especially when you try to turn skepticism about some things to pretend that must be equally applied to all things. I'm not the one that has a problem with gravity, you are. I don't have a problem with gravity, I have a problem with people who claim an absurd hyperskeptical position when they dislike the implications of scientific research, but demonstrate no skepticism at all in other situations.
Really??? When? For one example: Life is simply too complex to have happened without a design. Several organs and even simple structures require too many things to be in just the right place in order to function.
Why would you think it has anything to do with blind luck? There is a bit of skill involved.So you claim, but how do we tell the difference? If you can't know the effect your treatment will have, until that treatment has been implemented, then you can't be relying on anything other than blind luck.

Cavalry Doc

07-24-2012, 04:46

Then please correct me and explicitly state your position.
Granted, now could you answer the question?
You're failing to take into account at least one potential cause of stomach ulcers. How do you explain this failure to fully care for your patients?
But that's exactly what you're doing in arguing that since we haven't yet found fraud in some scientific findings we should behave as if we will find such fraud in the future.
I don't have a problem with gravity, I have a problem with people who claim an absurd hyperskeptical position when they dislike the implications of scientific research, but demonstrate no skepticism at all in other situations.

And you still continue to exaggerate the point to the level of absurdity in order to find fault. I can't help you if you can't see it. The argument you are making proposing blind faith in what you've been told is interesting, but we can go there later.

The point is for you to realize how much you think you know, that you actually believe, because you have never actually conducted the experiments yourself. Most of what people "know" about science and history was told to them in some way (verbal, books, video etc). It would be absurd, as you have illustrated, inadvertently I believe, to discard everything you have been taught. But reasonable for someone to accept it for what it is, relayed information, and if you discover some inconsistency in the future, don't be afraid to question it. No need to be paranoid about it. Stuff happens. Sometimes the facts are what they are, and the information wasn't relayed correctly. If your skepticism rises to a level that causes a rash, see your health care provider for treatment.

For one example:
So you claim, but how do we tell the difference? If you can't know the effect your treatment will have, until that treatment has been implemented, then you can't be relying on anything other than blind luck.

It's obvious you are attempting an oblique but mild insult. Meh, it's mild. Tell you what, next time you have a hole in your chest, PM me. If I get there in time, you'll be in good hands, you have my word on it.

[/sarcasm]

It's called experience. That experience has taught me to be prepared to handle remotely possible occurrences outside the norm. Simple things, if I order an immunization, I also ask you to stay in the clinic for 20 minutes. I've never had anyone go into anaphylactic shock from a flu shot, it is possible, and if it happens, I want you there in the clinic instead of in your car heading into a shool zone.

Lone Wolf8634

07-24-2012, 06:40

It would be absurd, as you have illustrated, inadvertently I believe, to discard everything you have been taught. But reasonable for someone to accept it for what it is, relayed information, and if you discover some inconsistency in the future, don't be afraid to question it.

This is, I believe, exactly what has been said we do with science. I'm so glad you finally got the point. See? Not faith. Conditional acceptance.

Geko45

07-24-2012, 07:16

You are intentionally exaggerating my position. That may make it easier for you, but it's a straw man argument.

Actually, the fallacy you are grasping for would be reductio ad absurdum and not strawman (why do theists only ever make pleas to this one?), but you would still be wrong. AM isn't exagerrating your position, he is identifying an inconsistency in it.

Geko45

07-24-2012, 07:20

I have personal evidence that gravity exists.

You actually only know of gravity through inductive reasoning.

Cavalry Doc

07-24-2012, 07:47

Actually, the fallacy you are grasping for would be reductio ad absurdum and not strawman (why do theists only ever make pleas to this one?), but you would still be wrong. AM isn't exagerrating your position, he is identifying an inconsistency in it.

I was unaware that the two were mutually exclusive, but I'll accept that you pointed out another flaw in his reasoning.

Thanks.

Also note the contrarian tactic of sprinkling a little false statement within your post in an attempt to illicit a response.

Looks like you're going to be following me around for a while. No problem, we could all use a little comedic relief.

Cavalry Doc

07-24-2012, 07:52

This is, I believe, exactly what has been said we do with science. I'm so glad you finally got the point. See? Not faith. Conditional acceptance.

Like I said before, maybe not exactly the same in all instances for all people, but you have to admit it is similar in many cases.

Animal Mother

07-24-2012, 07:59

And you still continue to exaggerate the point to the level of absurdity in order to find fault. I can't help you if you can't see it. You could try explaining what you believe I'm overy exaggerating.
The argument you are making proposing blind faith in what you've been told is interesting, but we can go there later. As I've made no such argument, that seems unlikely to happen.
The point is for you to realize how much you think you know, that you actually believe, because you have never actually conducted the experiments yourself. I conduct a lot of experiments.
Most of what people "know" about science and history was told to them in some way (verbal, books, video etc). It would be absurd, as you have illustrated, inadvertently I believe, to discard everything you have been taught. Yet, that's exactly what you're indirectly advocating with statements like, "Or, you could just say, eh? I wasn't there, so I simply don't know for sure, but it sure is still fun to look at all the stuff that is here, and see how it works.
or
Well, many things were seen as magical before they were understood. Just because we cannot fathom how something would happen does not mean that it can't happen. Obviously, we still have a lot to learn from this little planet revolving around a mundane star.
or
And you are sure that 100% of the fraud has been discovered??!! That's an awful lot of faith.
But reasonable for someone to accept it for what it is, relayed information, and if you discover some inconsistency in the future, don't be afraid to question it. Who has argued otherwise? You've just concisely described the very foundation of the science that you keep denigrating.
It's obvious you are attempting an oblique but mild insult. Meh, it's mild. Tell you what, next time you have a hole in your chest, PM me. If I get there in time, you'll be in good hands, you have my word on it. I think you see things that aren't actually there, unless they happen to be stomach trolls I suppose.
It's called experience. That experience has taught me to be prepared to handle remotely possible occurrences outside the norm. Simple things, if I order an immunization, I also ask you to stay in the clinic for 20 minutes. I've never had anyone go into anaphylactic shock from a flu shot, it is possible, and if it happens, I want you there in the clinic instead of in your car heading into a shool zone.What you don't seem to grasp, inexplicably at this point, is that experience is nothing more than examining evidence and applying inductive reasoning, two things you seem to be utterly opposed to in any context outside your own personal sphere of knowledge. That dichotomy is what I'm both trying to demonstrate and get you to explain.

Lone Wolf8634

07-24-2012, 08:01

Like I said before, maybe not exactly the same in all instances for all people, but you have to admit it is similar in many cases.

Nope. Whether or not anyone chooses to do so, the info on just about any scientific finding is out there. No one is forced to take science on faith alone.

Cavalry Doc

07-24-2012, 18:44

You could try explaining what you believe I'm overy exaggerating.
As I've made no such argument, that seems unlikely to happen.
I conduct a lot of experiments.
Yet, that's exactly what you're indirectly advocating with statements like, "
or

or

Who has argued otherwise? You've just concisely described the very foundation of the science that you keep denigrating.
I think you see things that aren't actually there, unless they happen to be stomach trolls I suppose.
What you don't seem to grasp, inexplicably at this point, is that experience is nothing more than examining evidence and applying inductive reasoning, two things you seem to be utterly opposed to in any context outside your own personal sphere of knowledge. That dichotomy is what I'm both trying to demonstrate and get you to explain.

Oh mother, if you can't see the exaggeration by now, I don't thing I'll ever be able to convince you it exists. No problem. Some things are fixed.

Perhaps you could list all of the experiments you have conducted and proven knowledge to exist to your satisfaction, that would stand up to a peer review and confirmation by independent sources, and then list all of the things you believe you know that you have not personally conducted the experimentation to prove to a reasonable and peer reviewed standard.

Maybe if you see the two side by side, it will be evident.

I've led you to water, and you refuse to drink. I'm not trying to sell you on a falsehood, but elaborate a truth. I'm cool if you are not ready. Some things are very hard to admit.

Much of what most people think they know, they only believe they know.

True, false?

Cavalry Doc

07-24-2012, 18:47

Nope. Whether or not anyone chooses to do so, the info on just about any scientific finding is out there. No one is forced to take science on faith alone.

Out where? On the internet? And we all know that is 100% correct....:rofl: Books? If you accept that printed words are any different, and holy beyond reproach, that would be comical. Classes? From teachers that learned from books and lectures from teachers..... that learned from classes and books.

If skepticism was unreasonable, we would know that we know everything, and could stop all research now.

Errors happen, sometimes completely on accident, and people come to the wrong conclusion. Human history is full of instances of changing theories. Are you certain we've reached the moment of true and complete enlightenment?

Some very prestigious gentlemen used to argue that the world was flat. You'll be in good company.

ksg0245

07-24-2012, 20:22

Out where? On the internet? And we all know that is 100% correct....:rofl: Books? If you accept that printed words are any different, and holy beyond reproach, that would be comical. Classes? From teachers that learned from books and lectures from teachers..... that learned from classes and books.

If skepticism was unreasonable, we would know that we know everything, and could stop all research now.

Errors happen, sometimes completely on accident, and people come to the wrong conclusion. Human history is full of instances of changing theories. Are you certain we've reached the moment of true and complete enlightenment?

Some very prestigious gentlemen used to argue that the world was flat. You'll be in good company.

Good thing smart people examined the evidence.

Animal Mother

07-24-2012, 21:19

Oh mother, if you can't see the exaggeration by now, I don't thing I'll ever be able to convince you it exists. No problem. Some things are fixed.
Isn't it odd how you continually sling accusations, but then fail to produce supporting evidence when asked to do so.
Perhaps you could list all of the experiments you have conducted and proven knowledge to exist to your satisfaction, that would stand up to a peer review and confirmation by independent sources, and then list all of the things you believe you know that you have not personally conducted the experimentation to prove to a reasonable and peer reviewed standard. I suppose I could, but given your inability to answer simple questions it does seem like a bit much to ask.
Maybe if you see the two side by side, it will be evident.

I've led you to water, and you refuse to drink. I'm not trying to sell you on a falsehood, but elaborate a truth. I'm cool if you are not ready. Some things are very hard to admit. Yes, you do ably demonstrate this principle, while simultaneously failing to demonstrate any of your claims using actual evidence.
Much of what most people think they know, they only believe they know.

True, false?That would depend on the what and the people in question. You apparently are under the impression you are capable of actual knowledge, for example, despite the aforementioned inability to produce supporting evidence and ignore that others might have similar knowledge, even though they are both willing and able to produce evidence supporting their positions.

Cavalry Doc

07-25-2012, 04:49

Ok, against my better judgement I will attempt to show you your exaggeration from the moment you waded in.

And you are sure that 100% of the fraud has been discovered??!! That's an awful lot of faith.

On occasion, there are just simple mistakes.

http://m.discovermagazine.com/2000/oct/featblunders

Science is good, probably even excellent, but not perfect. That's all that I was saying. Maybe this discussion would better fit in the "sacred" thread??

Don't believe everything you read. People screw up often.

Are you really arguing that we should never accept anything because it might be shown to be wrong someday? Do you apply that kind of thinking to the medical care you provide, or lack of care I suppose since any actual care might turn out to be fraudulent at some point.

The simple answer is "no", I never held the position that we should never accept anything told to us by others.

Another exaggerated statement of what you posted is my position:
Pick one, though this new "Science is fallible, thus we should always question every aspect of it all the time, except the parts I, Cavalry Doc, personally accept" does seem interesting.

Nope. Never said that either.

Exaggeration followed by ad hom, in both cases. It's like a template for you.

If you can't see it, I can't help you. You'll have to seek therapy elsewhere.

Lone Wolf8634

07-25-2012, 06:58

Out where? On the internet? And we all know that is 100% correct....:rofl:

I never mentioned how, only that the info is available. You seem to read as much into others statements as you accuse others of doing.

Books? If you accept that printed words are any different, and holy beyond reproach, that would be comical. Classes? From teachers that learned from books and lectures from teachers..... that learned from classes and books.

Speaking of exaggeration, Holy beyond reproach? Comical? Now we cant trust verifiable information simply because its been handed down from books and teachers?

Did you forget the entire "Conditional Acceptance" concept we worked so hard to explain to you, or are you deliberately being obtuse again?

Your not being clever, and its arguments like these that have caused some to brand you "troll".

If skepticism was unreasonable, we would know that we know everything, and could stop all research now.

Again, "Conditional Acceptance"

Read it
Learn it
Live it.

Errors happen, sometimes completely on accident, and people come to the wrong conclusion. Human history is full of instances of changing theories. Are you certain we've reached the moment of true and complete enlightenment?

Where in Einsteins universe did you get this? This question doesn't even deserve an answer.

You'll have to do better.

Some very prestigious gentlemen used to argue that the world was flat. You'll be in good company.

Would you like to go on making my point for me?

Yup, those "very prestigious gentlemen" argued that the world was flat. Then, along came science, proved that theory wrong and now anyone with an interest can do a bit of research, and not only find out that it isn't flat, but find out what shape it actually is, it's diameter, its mass, and what its made of and where that came from and on and on. You could get the lowdown on our little blue ball in less than an afternoon of research.

Of course, according to you, we must now worship that information if it is to be of any use.:upeyes:

Cavalry Doc

07-25-2012, 07:33

I never mentioned how, only that the info is available. You seem to read as much into others statements as you accuse others of doing.

Speaking of exaggeration, Holy beyond reproach? Comical? Now we cant trust verifiable information simply because its been handed down from books and teachers?

Did you forget the entire "Conditional Acceptance" concept we worked so hard to explain to you, or are you deliberately being obtuse again?

Your not being clever, and its arguments like these that have caused some to brand you "troll".

Again, "Conditional Acceptance"

Read it
Learn it
Live it.

Where in Einsteins universe did you get this? This question doesn't even deserve an answer.

You'll have to do better.

Would you like to go on making my point for me?

Yup, those "very prestigious gentlemen" argued that the world was flat. Then, along came science, proved that theory wrong and now anyone with an interest can do a bit of research, and not only find out that it isn't flat, but find out what shape it actually is, it's diameter, its mass, and what its made of and where that came from and on and on. You could get the lowdown on our little blue ball in less than an afternoon of research.

Of course, according to you, we must now worship that information if it is to be of any use.:upeyes:

Ok, I'm all ears (or eyes in this case), where would this information be found? I assumed it would be something you could read, watch or hear. My bad. I'll give you the opportunity to respond before I consider any criticism.

I'm pretty sure I've not asked anyone to worship anything. Where did that come from?

Lone Wolf8634

07-25-2012, 07:55

Ok, I'm all ears (or eyes in this case), where would this information be found?

Is there a point to this? Where do suppose it would be found?

Here's a small list of scientific specialties that you may tap to further your knowledge of the earth and its place in the cosmos:

Geology
Meteorology
Astronomy
Physics
Astrophysics

There's a variety of resources available on any of these subjects, form your local library to, yes the evil internet. An intelligent gent like yourself should be able to ferret out info, and by cross referencing, using multiple resources, get the gist of anything you wanna know.

Are you now, truly, gonna argue that we're taking all this info on faith and then expound on your ridiculous theory that equates that to religious faith?

If so, don't bother. I'll admit defeat. I'll have completely failed at judging who I can have an intelligent conversation with.

I assumed it would be something you could read, watch or hear. My bad. I'll give you the opportunity to respond before I consider any criticism.

Did you expect to absorb the info through osmosis?

I'm pretty sure I've not asked anyone to worship anything. Where did that come from?

You imply that we take textbooks, teachers lectures and experiments on faith. And then try to put an "=" between conditional acceptance of scientific theories and unquestioning faith in religious dogma. All in a not so subtle attempt to continue your inane "Atheism is a Religion" argument.

Cavalry Doc

07-25-2012, 09:59

Is there a point to this? Where do suppose it would be found?

Here's a small list of scientific specialties that you may tap to further your knowledge of the earth and its place in the cosmos:

Geology
Meteorology
Astronomy
Physics
Astrophysics

There's a variety of resources available on any of these subjects, form your local library to, yes the evil internet. An intelligent gent like yourself should be able to ferret out info, and by cross referencing, using multiple resources, get the gist of anything you wanna know.

Are you now, truly, gonna argue that we're taking all this info on faith and then expound on your ridiculous theory that equates that to religious faith?

If so, don't bother. I'll admit defeat. I'll have completely failed at judging who I can have an intelligent conversation with.

Did you expect to absorb the info through osmosis?

You imply that we take textbooks, teachers lectures and experiments on faith. And then try to put an "=" between conditional acceptance of scientific theories and unquestioning faith in religious dogma. All in a not so subtle attempt to continue your inane "Atheism is a Religion" argument.

Not equates, just similar in some aspects. Everything in the library was written by someone else. You have to trust the author, or not, depending on what is written in the context of your own beliefs.

Atheism is a religious belief system, at least according to American English. Not everyone is willing to accept that. And I accept that. It is a belief based on faith, not actual evidence.

You're not a complete failure. We just have a different opinion. That doesn't make you a bad person.

Lone Wolf8634

07-25-2012, 16:08

Not equates, just similar in some aspects. Everything in the library was written by someone else. You have to trust the author, or not, depending on what is written in the context of your own beliefs.

As I said, you can get your information from multiple sources, and really, your beliefs matter very little in the area of science, it either is or it either isn't.

Atheism is a religious belief system, at least according to American English. Not everyone is willing to accept that. And I accept that. It is a belief based on faith, not actual evidence.

If Atheism was a religion we wouldn't need the word "Atheism". The word, and the concept it represents, is the precise opposite of religion. Your comparing apples to oranges and insisting they're the same because they are both fruit. It's foolish.

You're not a complete failure. We just have a different opinion. That doesn't make you a bad person.

Who said anything about being a "bad person"?

Animal Mother

07-25-2012, 16:26

Ok, against my better judgement I will attempt to show you your exaggeration from the moment you waded in.Most appreciated.
The simple answer is "no", I never held the position that we should never accept anything told to us by others. Your previous posts contradict this claim, which are correct? The ones where you discard anything that isn't 100% proven, presumably by personal experience or this one?

Another exaggerated statement of what you posted is my position:

Nope. Never said that either. You didn't write: And you are sure that 100% of the fraud has been discovered??!! That's an awful lot of faith.?

Can you point out anywhere that 100% certainty has ever been an aspect of scientific investigation? If not, I'll submit that your post is essentially saying that no science can be accepted.
Exaggeration followed by ad hom, in both cases. It's like a template for you. If your position is actually that scientific conclusions, reached by competent members of the field based on evidence should be accepted in the absence of contrary evidence, then we have no conflict. The issue is that your previous posts seem to differ from that position.
If you can't see it, I can't help you. You'll have to seek therapy elsewhere. Perhaps you should spend more time on better expressing your positions and less on insulting others. You might find better results.

Animal Mother

07-25-2012, 16:33

You have to trust the author, or not, depending on what is written in the context of your own beliefs. This is simply false, and yet another example of you both misrepresenting science and obliquely implying that it can't be trusted. Faith isn't required, because the evidence is available.

If one wishes to investigate astronomy, for example, they need not rely on the word of astronomers, because the evidence is available to be reviewed.
Atheism is a religious belief system, at least according to American English. Not everyone is willing to accept that. And I accept that. It is a belief based on faith, not actual evidence. It is a conclusion based on lack of evidence, as you've just admitted. No belief is required.
You're not a complete failure. We just have a different opinion. That doesn't make you a bad person. So much for your championing of not launching ad hom and insulting attacks on others. Look up hypocrite in your dictionary.

Cavalry Doc

07-25-2012, 18:09

Most appreciated.
Your previous posts contradict this claim, which are correct? The ones where you discard anything that isn't 100% proven, presumably by personal experience or this one?
You didn't write: ?

Can you point out anywhere that 100% certainty has ever been an aspect of scientific investigation? If not, I'll submit that your post is essentially saying that no science can be accepted.
If your position is actually that scientific conclusions, reached by competent members of the field based on evidence should be accepted in the absence of contrary evidence, then we have no conflict. The issue is that your previous posts seem to differ from that position.
Perhaps you should spend more time on better expressing your positions and less on insulting others. You might find better results.

I guess I was right. You either don't or won't see it.

I recommend a healthy amount of skepticism, not complete disregard, or blind unwavering faith. Both extremes are not recommended by me. All or nothing, black or white? Bad idea, and a markedly rigid thought pattern.... I'm not the extremist here, and you can't see it.

Your polarizing binary mindset is firmly in place. I gave you the evidence you requested, and it was a waste of time. That's something for me to consider when I read your posts from now on.

Cavalry Doc

07-25-2012, 18:33

As I said, you can get your information from multiple sources, and really, your beliefs matter very little in the area of science, it either is or it either isn't.

How do controversial areas of science deal with that? There are a few competing ideas out there, even among real scientists. There are still little tiny things that aren't understood, that are linchpins to other things. As a species, we are in the early stages of figuring it all out.

If Atheism was a religion we wouldn't need the word "Atheism". The word, and the concept it represents, is the precise opposite of religion. Your comparing apples to oranges and insisting they're the same because they are both fruit. It's foolish.

Well, by that logic, we could call all other religions by a single word too. We wouldn't need words like Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Spinozosim, Wicca, or Atheism. But since there are differences in the metaphysical assumptions different people have made, based on faith, and held to with ardor, there are sub-terms to describe them.

Who said anything about being a "bad person"?

Oh, I was just trying to extend to you a courtesy that you seem unable to extend to me. That's all.

I don't have any dislike toward you because you see things differently.

Animal Mother

07-25-2012, 18:40

I guess I was right. You seem to regularly reach this conclusion despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
You either don't or won't see it. I seldom see things that aren't there, that's one of the reasons I'm such a proponent of producing supporting evidence.
I recommend a healthy amount of skepticism, not complete disregard, or blind unwavering faith. Both extremes are not recommended by me. All or nothing, black or white? Bad idea, and a markedly rigid thought pattern.... I'm not the extremist here, and you can't see it. This healthy skepticism you "recommend" seems to vary wildly in scope, that's what a number of people have tried to point out to you. From questioning climate change based on the failure to find any fraud, which is simply odd, to advocating an intelligent design position despite the complete lack of evidence to support it.
Your polarizing binary mindset is firmly in place. Once again you're inventing things that simply don't exist.
I gave you the evidence you requested, and it was a waste of time. That's something for me to consider when I read your posts from now on. You claimed your posts don't say what they actually say. As I said in my last post, perhaps you need to work on better communicating your position if you feel it is being misunderstood.

Lone Wolf8634

07-26-2012, 06:49

How do controversial areas of science deal with that? There are a few competing ideas out there, even among real scientists. There are still little tiny things that aren't understood, that are linchpins to other things. As a species, we are in the early stages of figuring it all out.

They continue to study, form hypothesis, test those to destruction and if they stand up to all the tests, someday they may be called a theory. But scientists dont continue to cling to an idea after its been falsified simply because they believe it.

Actually, there are a lot of competing ideas out there, and they will continue to compete till one of them proves true. And yes we are still in the early stages of figuring everything out. But we have a system to do so, one that has a healthy dose of skepticism built right in. So we don't have to take anything on faith.

Well, by that logic, we could call all other religions by a single word too. We wouldn't need words like Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Spinozosim, Wicca, or Atheism. But since there are differences in the metaphysical assumptions different people have made, based on faith, and held to with ardor, there are sub-terms to describe them.

Oh, I was just trying to extend to you a courtesy that you seem unable to extend to me. That's all.

I don't have any dislike toward you because you see things differently.

I don't dislike you. I don't know you. I just think your wrong. And I think your assertions are inane and foolish. I'm not one to sugar coat anything IRL. I'm certainly not gonna do it here.

Cavalry Doc

07-26-2012, 10:46

They continue to study, form hypothesis, test those to destruction and if they stand up to all the tests, someday they may be called a theory. But scientists dont continue to cling to an idea after its been falsified simply because they believe it.

A lot of clinging does go on. Maybe it's just more often seen in medicine, but I have text books that describe the ability to take a blood pressure has done more harm than good. That belief lasted quite a while at the beginning of the last century. Our understanding of the universe and even our own planet continues to change. That's probably a good thing.

Actually, there are a lot of competing ideas out there, and they will continue to compete till one of them proves true. And yes we are still in the early stages of figuring everything out. But we have a system to do so, one that has a healthy dose of skepticism built right in. So we don't have to take anything on faith. Well, since a lot of what we "know" has been taught to us by others, so there is a level of trust or faith, whatever you choose to call it, that is necessary.

I don't dislike you. I don't know you. I just think your wrong. And I think your assertions are inane and foolish. I'm not one to sugar coat anything IRL. I'm certainly not gonna do it here.

Well, so you say, and at the same time can't help but call it "foolish". There are some emotional connotations in the words you choose. Being straight forward in your disagreement doesn't require that you make such inferences.

Lone Wolf8634

07-26-2012, 23:00

A lot of clinging does go on. Maybe it's just more often seen in medicine, but I have text books that describe the ability to take a blood pressure has done more harm than good. That belief lasted quite a while at the beginning of the last century. Our understanding of the universe and even our own planet continues to change. That's probably a good thing.

There may be some clinging to ideas that have not been positively falsified, as an example that I have been learning about is String Theory. Some proponents of this theory have clung to it despite numerous setbacks and challenges. But, they weren't doing it because they wanted it to work, they did it because they could see how it could work and if the various problems could be ironed out, it would go a long way towards helping us understand the universe in which we live. Guess what? A bit of perseverance paid off, and many problems that originally plagued the theory have been overcome, of course the answers brought an entirely new set of questions and problems, but the point is, it was never shown to be completely wrong . Just very hard, challenging all of our knowledge, mathematically and technically. String theory is still fairly controversial and may still be proven wrong. Theorists aren't taking anything on faith, and I'd bet everything I own that if some piece of evidence arises that falsifies it, people like Brian Green and Michio Kaku would drop it, fast. There is no sense in pursuing a losing proposition.

Well, since a lot of what we "know" has been taught to us by others, so there is a level of trust or faith, whatever you choose to call it, that is necessary.

You're still trying to compare apples and oranges, faith, by definition is belief in something with no evidence. By contrast, almost everything in science that you equate with faith is knowable, should you choose to know it. If you want to, you could learn Einsteins theory of General Relativity, with the proper math and physics skills, you could recheck the equations, use them to make predictions, confirm those predictions and satisfy yourself that they work. Just like any physics student will do in the course of learning his craft.

This isn't possible with religious faith, you'll just have to believe, without any possibility of confirmation till the day you die.

There's enough of a difference there to negate your assertion that the two are the same, or even similar.

Well, so you say, and at the same time can't help but call it "foolish". There are some emotional connotations in the words you choose. Being straight forward in your disagreement doesn't require that you make such inferences.

Well, I'm sorry, I cannot control your emotional reactions to my words, that's on you. Just know that I say your assertions are foolish, not you personally.

Lone_Wolfe

07-26-2012, 23:25

......

You're still trying to compare apples and oranges, faith, by definition is belief in something with no PROOF.
...........

I changed one word in your post to disagree with you. I may choose to have faith something exists, will happen, has happened based on evidence that doesn't constitute proof.

For example, I just did some business with an online vendor and something went very wrong. Based on their past history of dealing things like this (evidence), I have faith that they'll make this situation right. If there were no evidence that they'd stepped up before I wouldn't have the faith I do in this case.

:wavey:

GlockN

07-27-2012, 00:04

only evidence i have, is my wife and daughter, and my sobriety...

tears streaming down my face, i know there is a God, and, for some reason, he still loves me.

Rob on Saturday, repent on Sunday. Congrats on your sobriety.

Lone Wolf8634

07-27-2012, 00:13

I changed one word in your post to disagree with you. I may choose to have faith something exists, will happen, has happened based on evidence that doesn't constitute proof.

For example, I just did some business with an online vendor and something went very wrong. Based on their past history of dealing things like this (evidence), I have faith that they'll make this situation right. If there were no evidence that they'd stepped up before I wouldn't have the faith I do in this case. :wavey:

Hi Sweety!:wavey:

Oof, proof vs evidence, now your opening a whole new can o' worms!!

It's my understanding that evidence is a fact or situation that suggests something might be true. Proof is a fact or situation that removes all doubt.

"Proof" is a very high bar to set for anything talked about in this forum. It would involve undeniable, irrefutable evidence. Such that your vendor will do the right thing, all the time, everytime, till the end of time. Testable, predictable, non varying evidence that anyone who ever has or ever will do business with them will be completely satisfied. Impossible.

Now, you, yourself, may have faith that this vendor will do the correct thing due to your past experience, but your past personal experience is neither proof, nor evidence. It could not be used to prove to someone else that this vendor will do the right thing, all the time, every time.

The kind of evidence I'm speaking of, in the context of my example using String Theory, is that ST seems to solve a lot of problems in combining General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics. That's evidence that we may be on the right track, but it will never be accepted till it can make predictions that are testable and verifiable. And even then, it will not be considered proof without overwhelming evidence to confirm it. GR itself has been around almost a century, has been used to predict all the orbits of our solar system, it was used to calculate the trajectories and speeds needed to place a man on the moon and every satellite in the sky. Yet it is still only a "theory", not a law.

So when I said "You're still trying to compare apples and oranges, faith, by definition is belief in something with no evidence." I meant exactly that. No evidence. There is no evidence that has ever been presented that any religion is correct, that any deity exists or ever has.

Science, on the other hand, has mounds of evidence. Evidence that can be tested, retested, verified independently and used to make predictions. Even so, very little of it is concrete "proof"

ETA: In the context of this particular conversation, "Evidence" for say, GR can be had by simply learning the proper skills and checking it out for yourself. That's not faith. Even if you choose not to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary, you don't need to take it on faith, the term I've used is "conditional acceptance".

In theism, almost everything has to be believed with no evidence, and what is claimed as evidence is the same as your personal experience with that online vendor, hearsay, or comes from a single source that also doesn't qualify as evidence. There is no way you can use this evidence to convince someone of the religions validity, even to the level of "Theory". If you accept it, you must do so unconditionally, without hope that there will ever be any evidence to justify your belief. That's faith.

Cavalry Doc

07-27-2012, 04:46

There may be some clinging to ideas that have not been positively falsified, as an example that I have been learning about is String Theory. Some proponents of this theory have clung to it despite numerous setbacks and challenges. But, they weren't doing it because they wanted it to work, they did it because they could see how it could work and if the various problems could be ironed out, it would go a long way towards helping us understand the universe in which we live. Guess what? A bit of perseverance paid off, and many problems that originally plagued the theory have been overcome, of course the answers brought an entirely new set of questions and problems, but the point is, it was never shown to be completely wrong . Just very hard, challenging all of our knowledge, mathematically and technically. String theory is still fairly controversial and may still be proven wrong. Theorists aren't taking anything on faith, and I'd bet everything I own that if some piece of evidence arises that falsifies it, people like Brian Green and Michio Kaku would drop it, fast. There is no sense in pursuing a losing proposition.

You're still trying to compare apples and oranges, faith, by definition is belief in something with no evidence. By contrast, almost everything in science that you equate with faith is knowable, should you choose to know it. If you want to, you could learn Einsteins theory of General Relativity, with the proper math and physics skills, you could recheck the equations, use them to make predictions, confirm those predictions and satisfy yourself that they work. Just like any physics student will do in the course of learning his craft.

This isn't possible with religious faith, you'll just have to believe, without any possibility of confirmation till the day you die.

There's enough of a difference there to negate your assertion that the two are the same, or even similar.

Of course there is evidence, and many of the experiments are reproducible. But without personally confirming scientific claims, you don't have evidence, you have belief. I'm not even suggest its a bad thing. I trust in the research I read too. For the most part, it's been pretty accurate, and I'd rather spend my life treating patients than researching them.

The point is, a lot of what we "know" is based in trusting a system to verify the information put out, and the knowledge discovered being correctly related to us.

Well, I'm sorry, I cannot control your emotional reactions to my words, that's on you. Just know that I say your assertions are foolish, not you personally.

It's not just a single sentence, it's a theme. I'm fine with it, just wanted to make you aware in case you weren't.

Cavalry Doc

07-27-2012, 06:21

I changed one word in your post to disagree with you. I may choose to have faith something exists, will happen, has happened based on evidence that doesn't constitute proof.

For example, I just did some business with an online vendor and something went very wrong. Based on their past history of dealing things like this (evidence), I have faith that they'll make this situation right. If there were no evidence that they'd stepped up before I wouldn't have the faith I do in this case.

:wavey:

Bringing "proof" into it does make it interesting. Proof has a lot of different meanings also. The standard used to claim proof can be a preponderance of the evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, or beyond any doubt. With what we have been told, we make judgements on whether or not proof has been acheived. Any lawyer will explain that proof and truth are not necessarily the same. Multiple people have been proven to commit crimes they were later found to have not committed.

Everyone makes choices in what to believe, sometimes it is the only reasonable choice, sometimes it is just one of a few possible reasonable choices.

It's odd that some seem resistant to accept that they have made a choice to believe in what they have been told. Faith is not a belief absent of evidence, it is a belief in something that lacks proof beyond any doubt.

Only some things are known beyond any doubt. But some feel a need to know that they know things for sure that they have only been told is true by other people.

Humankind is still in the early stages if learning about the universe, we have a long way to go, too far to be rigidly faithful that we know all there is to know. And that's ok.

Lone Wolf8634

07-27-2012, 11:18

Of course there is evidence, and many of the experiments are reproducible. But without personally confirming scientific claims, you don't have evidence, you have belief. I'm not even suggest its a bad thing. I trust in the research I read too. For the most part, it's been pretty accurate, and I'd rather spend my life treating patients than researching them.

The point is, a lot of what we "know" is based in trusting a system to verify the information put out, and the knowledge discovered being correctly related to us.

It's not just a single sentence, it's a theme. I'm fine with it, just wanted to make you aware in case you weren't.

It's a theme because pretty much everything you've authored on this forum falls into the same category.

You make a claim, and when you're disagreed with, your rebuttal amounts to "Uh uhh, I'm right and I don't understand why you have a problem admitting that. But it's ok to be wrong, I'm completely ok with that." And then launching into another reiteration of the same nonsense. With very little change.

I'm gonna leave you with one last thought: Words describe concepts. Atheism and Theism are two different, unique concepts. Faith in dogma and acceptance in that which is knowable are two different concepts. All of your arguments depend on very literal, rigid and narrow definitions while never considering the concept that the definition is trying to provide in a few short sentences. In order to continue with this argument you must define what you think Atheists "believe" ("You believe that no deities exist or have ever existed") even in the face of many of us telling you you're flat wrong ("We see no evidence to substantiate the claim so we reject it"). You insist on assigning philosophies to Atheism that aren't applicable (Atheist use science as a philosophy) even when its explained (slowly) that science is not a philosophy and has nothing to do with Atheism. But that doesn't slow you down, no sir.

Your arguments are not new, they're the same ones that Theists attempt to use in their never ending attempt to place Atheism and Theism on equal footing so they can proclaim "See? you're just like us!"

I won't say that I will not be posting rebuttals to your posts but I will not be trying to change your mind any longer, thats proven to be a huge waste of time and brain cells. Your wrong, and I'm perfectly ok with that.......

Cavalry Doc

07-27-2012, 17:46

It's a theme because pretty much everything you've authored on this forum falls into the same category.

You make a claim, and when you're disagreed with, your rebuttal amounts to "Uh uhh, I'm right and I don't understand why you have a problem admitting that. But it's ok to be wrong, I'm completely ok with that." And then launching into another reiteration of the same nonsense. With very little change.

I'm gonna leave you with one last thought: Words describe concepts. Atheism and Theism are two different, unique concepts. Faith in dogma and acceptance in that which is knowable are two different concepts. All of your arguments depend on very literal, rigid and narrow definitions while never considering the concept that the definition is trying to provide in a few short sentences. In order to continue with this argument you must define what you think Atheists "believe" ("You believe that no deities exist or have ever existed") even in the face of many of us telling you you're flat wrong ("We see no evidence to substantiate the claim so we reject it"). You insist on assigning philosophies to Atheism that aren't applicable (Atheist use science as a philosophy) even when its explained (slowly) that science is not a philosophy and has nothing to do with Atheism. But that doesn't slow you down, no sir.

Your arguments are not new, they're the same ones that Theists attempt to use in their never ending attempt to place Atheism and Theism on equal footing so they can proclaim "See? you're just like us!"

I won't say that I will not be posting rebuttals to your posts but I will not be trying to change your mind any longer, thats proven to be a huge waste of time and brain cells. Your wrong, and I'm perfectly ok with that.......

The difference this time, is you are hearing it from a committed agnostic. I have no god to defend. No preconceived notions about "THE BEGINNING". I have no bias in whether there was or was not a deity or deities. I do not know whether there is or was a deity or deities. I freely admit my ignorance.

I point out that a dogmatic and rigid belief that there has never been a deity, is a belief system based on faith. It's held to with ardor among many.

Go figure, I get treated like a blasphemer from the faithful. Just for pointing out a simply observed fact...... :dunno:

Many have professed feigned ignorance about whether a deity exists, and yet they still dogmatically support that "all the evidence" supports the absence of the possibility of a deity ever existing.

Hey, you certainly may be able to prove the inadequacies of some religious texts, but not the possibility that man has not yet discovered the ultimate truth.

Fact is, deep down we all know that we don't know. Some are able to admit it, and some are not.

If your choice at what to believe makes you a better person, I'm all for it.

Otherwise......

Your manners so far lead me to believe...... No, I'll let you guess.

What do you think you come off as?????

steveksux

07-27-2012, 20:13

Not equates, just similar in some aspects. Everything in the library was written by someone else. You have to trust the author, or not, depending on what is written in the context of your own beliefs.

Atheism is a religious belief system (like hockey in Canada), at least according to American English. Not everyone is willing to accept that. And I accept that. It is a belief based on faith, not actual evidence.

You're not a complete failure. We just have a different opinion. That doesn't make you a bad person.
Just thought I'd remind folks what the definition you're relying on really says about your position.

I put it the truth in parenthesis so it isn't sullied by your misrepresentations.

Randy

steveksux

07-27-2012, 20:17

If Atheism was a religion we wouldn't need the word "Atheism". The word, and the concept it represents, is the precise opposite of religion. Your comparing apples to oranges and insisting they're the same because they are both fruit. It's foolish.More like apples to orangutans in his case, but who's counting...

Randy

Cavalry Doc

07-27-2012, 20:37

Steveksux sizin İqnor siyahısında deyil, çünki bu mesajı gizlidir.

steveksux

07-27-2012, 20:43

Steveksux sizin İqnor siyahısında deyil, çünki bu mesajı gizlidir.

Gibberish... ?? from you? Haven't been this surprised since I found out Liberace was gay.

Randy

Animal Mother

07-27-2012, 21:02

The difference this time, is you are hearing it from a committed agnostic. I have no god to defend. No preconceived notions about "THE BEGINNING". I have no bias in whether there was or was not a deity or deities. I do not know whether there is or was a deity or deities. I freely admit my ignorance. You also freely ignore the evidence that does exist.
I point out that a dogmatic and rigid belief that there has never been a deity, is a belief system based on faith. It's held to with ardor among many. Do you have evidence that a deity or deities exists now or ever has existed? No? Then why would we consider such a position anymore than we'd consider ulcers being cause by an infestation of stomach trolls?
Many have professed feigned ignorance about whether a deity exists, and yet they still dogmatically support that "all the evidence" supports the absence of the possibility of a deity ever existing. Who has asserted this position?
Fact is, deep down we all know that we don't know. Some are able to admit it, and some are not. Again, who is claiming we know everything? You accuse others of attacking strawmen, but your whole position in this discussion, just like the one about atheism in schools, is based on a position no one actually holds.

Lone Wolf8634

07-27-2012, 23:30

The difference this time, is you are hearing it from a committed agnostic.

I not so sure I believe that.

I have no god to defend. No preconceived notions about "THE BEGINNING".

Nor I, yet you accuse me of it because I say "the evidence for this is more convincing than the lack of evidence for that."

I have no bias in whether there was or was not a deity or deities. I do not know whether there is or was a deity or deities.

Nor I, yet you accuse me of it because I say "the evidence for this is more convincing than the lack of evidence for that."

I freely admit my ignorance.

:whistling:

I point out that a dogmatic and rigid belief that there has never been a deity, is a belief system based on faith. It's held to with ardor among many.

Yet again, you assign belief falsely.

Go figure, I get treated like a blasphemer from the faithful. Just for pointing out a simply observed fact...... :dunno:

:rofl::rofl:

Nice. You play the victim well.

Many have professed feigned ignorance about whether a deity exists, and yet they still dogmatically support that "all the evidence" supports the absence of the possibility of a deity ever existing.

Again, you misrepresent what has been explained to you many times.

"all the evidence" does not support " the absence of the possibility of a deity ever existing." "all the evidence" simply doesn't require a deity to exist. And "all the evidence" that would support the "possibility of a deity ever existing." does not exist. So instead of chucking one in there, because it's a "profound" and "meaningful" subject, we simply reject the assertion.

Please, if you're gonna state our position, please do so accurately.

Hey, you certainly may be able to prove the inadequacies of some religious texts, but not the possibility that man has not yet discovered the ultimate truth.

So because we haven't discovered "the ultimate truth" we should give serious consideration to that which we have no evidence for?

And are you sure there is an " ultimate truth". Maybe it's all just a happy accident.

Fact is, deep down we all know that we don't know. Some are able to admit it, and some are not.

Yet again, you misrepresent what was said to further your case. Are you sure you're not a lawyer?

If your choice at what to believe makes you a better person, I'm all for it.

Otherwise......

Your manners so far lead me to believe...... No, I'll let you guess.

What do you think you come off as?????

Irritated with you, mostly. Even though I agree with Randy's opinion of what you are doing here, I tried for a long time to argue as if you are sincere. You've completely convinced me that that isn't true. So now I'm just making sure your arguments do not go unchallenged.

Cavalry Doc

07-28-2012, 05:44

So, a contrarian then. Oh well, I guess your goal is to try to stifle competing points of view?

At least I know what perspective you are coming from. That helps a lot.

steveksux

07-28-2012, 06:11

So, a contrarian then. Oh well, I guess your goal is to try to stifle competing points of view?

At least I know what perspective you are coming from. That helps a lot.Alas, some people can admit they're wrong when their flawed arguments are exposed. Repeatedly. Some cannot.

Others resort to accusing those exposing the flaws of "stifling competing points of view".

Flawed arguments can not compete with the truth, they are not competitive by their very nature. The goal is exposing misrepresentation and dishonesty. Falsehoods fall by the wayside as a natural part of debate. These arguments are REFUTED, not STIFLED. There's a huge difference. Check your beloved Merriam-Webster, I'm sure you can find another definition to misrepresent to cover that difference up as well. Sunlight kills trolls as well as corruption.

Alas, some people can admit they're wrong when their flawed arguments are exposed. Repeatedly. Some cannot.

Others resort to accusing those exposing the flaws of "stifling competing points of view".

Flawed arguments can not compete with the truth, they are not competitive by their very nature. The goal is exposing misrepresentation and dishonesty. Falsehoods fall by the wayside as a natural part of debate. These arguments are REFUTED, not STIFLED. There's a huge difference. Check your beloved Merriam-Webster, I'm sure you can find another definition to misrepresent to cover that difference up as well. Sunlight kills trolls as well as corruption.

We have different opinions about the origins of the universe and certain beliefs. People are different, many have different opinions, there should be no big surprises there.

Lone Wolf8634

07-28-2012, 11:36

I said try, neither of us expects you will be successful.

We have different opinions about the origins of the universe and certain beliefs. People are different, many have different opinions, there should be no big surprises there.

So then, why insinuate that I would try to do something everyone (not just us) knows I cannot?:dunno:

Sometimes, Doc, you're a riot.

Cavalry Doc

07-28-2012, 11:41

So then, why insinuate that I would try to do something everyone (not just us) knows I cannot?:dunno:

Sometimes, Doc, you're a riot.

Well, that seems to be your goal, am I mistaken? Would you prefer I did not offer my perspective?

You post that you do not believe that I am an agnostic. But I am. I guess it's OK if I think you have made a choice to believe something without evidence, which is factually correct. You've looked at evidence for the natural situation of reality, and somehow used it to support a belief that you cherish, even though none of the evidence speaks to your belief. I don't believe you are as passive as you claim in your belief. Your pattern of conversation would seem to prove otherwise.

Lone Wolf8634

07-28-2012, 12:34

Well, that seems to be your goal, am I mistaken? Would you prefer I did not offer my perspective?

You are mistaken, Even if I had the power to silence you, I would not. You are entitled to your (wrong) opinion, but if you put it out there, expect to be rebutted.

Again, you misrepresent what was said, here is the exact quote: "Irritated with you, mostly. Even though I agree with Randy's opinion of what you are doing here, I tried for a long time to argue as if you are sincere. You've completely convinced me that that isn't true. So now I'm just making sure your arguments do not go unchallenged."

I defy you to find where I said I wished to "stifle" you.

Feeling a bit disingenuous today?

You post that you do not believe that I am an agnostic. But I am.

I posted that you use the same arguments and tactics the Theists use, and then I said I wasn't so sure you're an Agnostic, I'll grant you, it's a bit of inductive ('member that word?) logic, but...walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.........

But to be candid, I really don't know what you are, and I don't care, it doesn't matter if an Agnostic makes incorrect statements, or a Theist does, they're still incorrect.

So you have my apologies, Doc, I should never have insinuated you don't believe what you say you do. I, at least, will not resort to that tactic again.:wavey:

I guess it's OK if I think you have made a choice to believe something without evidence, which is factually correct.

You've looked at evidence for the natural situation of reality, and somehow used it to support a belief that you cherish, even though none of the evidence speaks to your belief.

Disingenuous at best. You have no idea what I believe, and you have no idea what evidence I've looked at, would it surprise you to know that until last month, I had no idea what the Big Bang Theory even said? I was under the same illusion as most other folks. Quantum Mechanics was just a few cool sounding words and Special Relativity a mystery til a few weeks ago. I had no more information on these subjects than many of the Theists here, quite a bit less, more than likely.

Wanna know why?

Because I didn't care, me self identifying as an Atheist came from sitting in Sunday school, listening to the fantastical stories, I said to myself, "this doesn't seem likely", so I quit paying attention to it. Of course, at 7 or 8 years old, I really didn't understand "Atheism", but when I became aware of the meaning (something you apparently lack) I said to myself "Yup, thats me."

So don't tell me what I believe or how I came to believe it. And don't be so presumptuous as to tell me what I "cherish".

And as far as "none of the evidence speaks to your belief."? I have never claimed any evidence speaks to no deity existing. In fact, I'm almost positive that I said...hold on, lemme find the quote....Ah, here it is: "all the evidence" does not support " the absence of the possibility of a deity ever existing." "all the evidence" simply doesn't require a deity to exist. And "all the evidence" that would support the "possibility of a deity ever existing." does not exist. So instead of chucking one in there, because it's a "profound" and "meaningful" subject, we simply reject the assertion. "

Anything else you would like to misrepresent?

I don't believe you are as passive as you claim in your belief. Your pattern of conversation would seem to prove otherwise.

Could that possibly be because you're misrepresenting what I believe? It couldn't possibly that I disagree with you strongly enough to voice my disagreement?

Again, your tactics are a bit underhanded here, Doc.

steveksux

07-28-2012, 13:20

Wow, someone gets more of a sick thrill out of irritating people on a Saturday than a Jehovah's Witness.

I guess that believing Atheism is a religion IS ITSELF a religion.

Ardor. Faith. Belief. Prosthelytizing.

ETA: And no rational basis for believing it.

Randy

Syclone538

07-28-2012, 13:23

Wow, someone gets more of a sick thrill out of irritating people on a Saturday than a Jehovah's Witness.

I guess insisting that believing Atheism is a religion IS ITSELF a religion.

Ardor. Faith. Belief. Prosthelytizing.

Randy

:rofl:

I can't believe we didn't notice this before.

CD's religion is claiming atheism is a religion.

steveksux

07-28-2012, 13:36

:rofl:

I can't believe we didn't notice this before.

CD's religion is claiming atheism is a religion.

I forgot to add: And no rational basis for believing it.

Randy

Cavalry Doc

07-28-2012, 20:03

:rofl:

I can't believe we didn't notice this before.

CD's religion is claiming atheism is a religion.

So, let me see if I get this straight. If I post here at this time, it's a problem, but if you do, it's perfectly OK?

That's awful duplicitous of you.

Anyway, I have the ability to multitask, I can watch the Olympics and watch GT at the same time. Not the same as your mother's basement at all.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/Olymp.png

Geko45

07-28-2012, 20:17

So, let me see if I get this straight. If I post here at this time, it's a problem, but if you do, it's perfectly OK?

That's awful duplicitous of you.

How did you take his statement about your obvious religion and turn it into an accusation that he has a problem with you posting here?

:dunno:

Anyway, I have the ability to multitask

Not very well apparently.

Cavalry Doc

07-28-2012, 20:28

How did you take his statement about your obvious religion and turn it into an accusation that he has a problem with you posting here?

:dunno:

Not very well apparently.

Geko,

I know it's hard for you, but ask your grandma for help. If only you would go back to post 158, just a few posts before this one, even a dain bramaged [sic]retard can see the answer to what you are asking.

Given that fact, I don't think you are being honest in your post.

Geko45

07-28-2012, 21:16

Geko,

I know it's hard for you, but ask your grandma for help. If only you would go back to post 158, just a few posts before this one, even a dain bramaged [sic]retard can see the answer to what you are asking.

Given that fact, I don't think you are being honest in your post.

Yeah, post 158 is the one I'm talking about. How did you interpret his statement about your obvious faith as a desire to not have you post here? Is it based on some sort of dogma of your belief system?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Syclone538

07-28-2012, 23:06

So, let me see if I get this straight. If I post here at this time, it's a problem, but if you do, it's perfectly OK?

That's awful duplicitous of you.

Anyway, I have the ability to multitask, I can watch the Olympics and watch GT at the same time. Not the same as your mother's basement at all.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/Olymp.png

What the heck are you talking about?

Are you sure you responded to the right post???

steveksux

07-28-2012, 23:38

Geko,

I know it's hard for you, but ask your grandma for help. If only you would go back to post 158, just a few posts before this one, even a dain bramaged [sic]retard can see the answer to what you are asking.

Given that fact, I don't think you are being honest in your post.

Where's that guy always complaining about people resorting to ad homs to condemn this guy?????

Oh yeah, this IS that guy...

The troll is losing his composure.... exposure is just too painful I suppose.

Randy

Syclone538

07-29-2012, 21:22

Geko,

I know it's hard for you, but ask your grandma for help. If only you would go back to post 158, just a few posts before this one, even a dain bramaged [sic]retard can see the answer to what you are asking.

Given that fact, I don't think you are being honest in your post.

I would really like for you to explain what it is that you think is hidden in post 158.

So, let me see if I get this straight.
...

You don't.

...
If I post here at this time, it's a problem,
...

No.

...
but if you do, it's perfectly OK?
...

Um... Yes.

...
That's awful duplicitous of you.
...

...
Anyway, I have the ability to multitask, I can watch the Olympics and watch GT at the same time.
...

I don't understand what this has to do with anything.

...
Not the same as your mother's basement at all.

That's great. I don't remember ever being rude to you, and have no idea what caused this post.

Geko45

07-29-2012, 21:35

That's great. I don't remember ever being rude to you, and have no idea what caused this post.

Members of his particular religious sect have a tendency towards developing persecution complexes.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

chickenwing

07-29-2012, 22:00

http://neurobonkers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Typing-troll.gif

Cavalry Doc

07-30-2012, 05:43

I would really like for you to explain what it is that you think is hidden in post 158.

You don't.

No.

Um... Yes.

I don't understand what this has to do with anything.

That's great. I don't remember ever being rude to you, and have no idea what caused this post.

I don't remember you being rude either, my irritation was not aimed at you, was harsher than it needed to be, my apologies.

Syclone538

07-30-2012, 09:05

I don't remember you being rude either, my irritation was not aimed at you, was harsher than it needed to be, my apologies.

Apology accepted. If that's all you want to say on it, I'll let it go, but I'm still very curious what I said that led you to believe that I think you shouldn't be allowed to post here, questioned your ability to multitask, and what I said that made you bring up my mothers basement.

Post 158 is short. It was pointed out to me that by your extremely over broad definition of religion, you have made a religion out of claiming that atheism is a religion. I find that hilarious. That's all there is to it.

chickenwing

07-30-2012, 16:03

Syclone538;19251413]Apology accepted. If that's all you want to say on it, I'll let it go, but I'm still very curious what I said that led you to believe that I think you shouldn't be allowed to post here, questioned your ability to multitask, and what I said that made you bring up my mothers basement.
That's Doc's MO, troll, a bit of tooting his own horn, then play the victim when you call him on the trolling.

You are lucky he didn't threaten to get you banned.

Post 158 is short. It was pointed out to me that by your extremely over broad definition of religion, you have made a religion out of claiming that atheism is a religion. I find that hilarious. That's all there is to it.
:rofl:It is!

Cavalry Doc

07-30-2012, 18:12

Apology accepted. If that's all you want to say on it, I'll let it go, but I'm still very curious what I said that led you to believe that I think you shouldn't be allowed to post here, questioned your ability to multitask, and what I said that made you bring up my mothers basement.

Post 158 is short. It was pointed out to me that by your extremely over broad definition of religion, you have made a religion out of claiming that atheism is a religion. I find that hilarious. That's all there is to it.

I went red direct when it was not necessary. My bad. I do try not to do that too often.

It's OK if you believe that is a religion. I think of it more of a curiosity, that is true, and for some odd reason, vehemently denied.

It's not just the definitions that fit, it fits (if your pardon the term) in the spirit of the meaning also.

It seems to me that a passive lack of believe would lead one to be quite comfortably agnostic. But the self described atheists take that another step, and it's not a small step, it is a leap of faith. It is difficult for me to understand why that is so hard to accept.

I do get that many have assigned the term Atheist to a passive lack of belief, but the definition, and my own view of the words disagree.

So I guess I now have two questions.

Why is it so hard to describe yourself as an atheistic agnostic if the term fits better?

And why is it so hard to admit atheism is a religion?

It's an honest perspective.

ksg0245

07-30-2012, 18:14

I went red direct when it was not necessary. My bad. I do try not to do that too often.

It's OK if you believe that is a religion. I think of it more of a curiosity, that is true, and for some odd reason, vehemently denied.

It's not just the definitions that fit, it fits (if your pardon the term) in the spirit of the meaning also.

It seems to me that a passive lack of believe would lead one to be quite comfortably agnostic. But the self described atheists take that another step, and it's not a small step, it is a leap of faith. It is difficult for me to understand why that is so hard to accept.

I do get that many have assigned the term Atheist to a passive lack of belief, but the definition, and my own view of the words disagree.

So I guess I now have two questions.

Why is it so hard to describe yourself as an atheistic agnostic if the term fits better?

And why is it so hard to admit atheism is a religion?

It's an honest perspective.

No, it isn't, given what every atheist here has told you.

Cavalry Doc

07-30-2012, 18:14

That's Doc's MO, troll, a bit of tooting his own horn, then play the victim when you call him on the trolling.

You are lucky he didn't threaten to get you banned.

:rofl:It is!

Is all you have left the ad hom?

I did treat him less politely than I should have. That is my bad.

He has accepted my apology, and I'll find some way to go on with my life. You can do the same.

Cavalry Doc

07-30-2012, 18:16

No, it isn't, given what every atheist here has told you.

Not every one. If you'll look back into the thread that shall not be named, there are a few acceptances.

It's an honest perspective.

Syclone538

07-30-2012, 22:23

I went red direct when it was not necessary. My bad. I do try not to do that too often.
...

Don't worry about it. It just surprised me.

...
It's OK if you believe that is a religion. I think of it more of a curiosity, that is true, and for some odd reason, vehemently denied.
...

Well I don't, but it would be by you definition of religion, which I think is way too over inclusive, while your definition of atheism is under inclusive.

...
It's not just the definitions that fit, it fits (if your pardon the term) in the spirit of the meaning also.
...

I disagree.

...
It seems to me that a passive lack of believe would lead one to be quite comfortably agnostic.
...

I am.

...
But the self described atheists take that another step, and it's not a small step, it is a leap of faith. It is difficult for me to understand why that is so hard to accept.
...

I don't have faith that there are no deities.

...
I do get that many have assigned the term Atheist to a passive lack of belief, but the definition, and my own view of the words disagree.

So I guess I now have two questions.

Why is it so hard to describe yourself as an atheistic agnostic if the term fits better?

And why is it so hard to admit atheism is a religion?

It's an honest perspective.

I am atheist and agnostic. They are 2 answers to 2 different questions.

Because it's not. To admit it is would be lying.

Gunhaver

07-31-2012, 01:16

Very bad analogy. Nuff said about that.

Why make up an analogy at all. Look at the actual question. There is amazingly complex and somewhat ordered nature of the universe. It is what it is, and that is plainly true. Nothing that we have discovered has proven how it got here. We have some neat stuff we are discovering even now, but whether the big bang just happened, or was made to happen, who knows?

You could make an argument from incredulity, and claim that the universe is too orderly to just have happened, and declare that a deity must have designed it.

You could make an argument from ignorance, and claim that you have found no evidence of "X" and so therefor "X" does not exist, and I guess we should add the corollary, that we think something can come from nothing, please pardon us as we attempt to prove that..... Which again, only adds complexity to the argument from ignorance, because even if mass can be produced, it doesn't explain how it all got to where it is in the shape it is in now.

Or, you could just say, eh? I wasn't there, so I simply don't know for sure, but it sure is still fun to look at all the stuff that is here, and see how it works.

We all make our choices, based sometimes on what feels right, or in avoidance of what feels wrong. But they are choices just the same.

some pretty smart guys had a tough time with the question too.
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/ae_scire.htm

So we have a treasure map that says a treasure is buried on a given spot and a metal detector has shown that indeed something is down there. But we don't have 100% confirmation that the treasure is there so we can assume that any claims that it's in another random spot anywhere in the world are equally valid.

That's basically what you argue here every day. As if evidence doesn't lead us in a direction step by step and it's only good when it's 100%. How do you get to that 100% if you don't take the steps?

Cavalry Doc

07-31-2012, 04:00

So we have a treasure map that says a treasure is buried on a given spot and a metal detector has shown that indeed something is down there. But we don't have 100% confirmation that the treasure is there so we can assume that any claims that it's in another random spot anywhere in the world are equally valid.

That's basically what you argue here every day. As if evidence doesn't lead us in a direction step by step and it's only good when it's 100%. How do you get to that 100% if you don't take the steps?

I think you think we are closer to knowing everything than I do. We have a very long way to go still. I don't think any analogy will accurately capture the profound nature of the search for the ultimate truth. In the beginning there was...... What? :dunno:

I wasn't there, so I simply don't know for sure, but it sure is still fun to look at all the stuff that is here, and see how it works.

We all make our choices, based sometimes on what feels right, or in avoidance of what feels wrong. But they are choices just the same.

Lone Wolf8634

07-31-2012, 10:50

I think you think we are closer to knowing everything than I do. We have a very long way to go still. I don't think any analogy will accurately capture the profound nature of the search for the ultimate truth. In the beginning there was...... What? :dunno:

I think you're assigning positions again. Gecko never even insinuated that we are close to knowing "everything". In fact, if he's got the same info I do, the experts say we know maybe 4% of what there is to know about the known universe. Which is to say, pretty much nothing.

And the answer in the search for "the Ultimate Truth" may be nothing more than a simple equation. ( Simple is relative).

He simply gave you an example of evidence vs proof and how your "perspective" ignores logic.

Cavalry Doc

08-01-2012, 17:57

I think you're assigning positions again. Gecko never even insinuated that we are close to knowing "everything". In fact, if he's got the same info I do, the experts say we know maybe 4% of what there is to know about the known universe. Which is to say, pretty much nothing.

And the answer in the search for "the Ultimate Truth" may be nothing more than a simple equation. ( Simple is relative).

He simply gave you an example of evidence vs proof and how your "perspective" ignores logic.

I think it is perfectly logical to leave an unanswered question alone without believing it must be one way or the other.

:dunno:

Lone Wolf8634

08-01-2012, 20:55

I think it is perfectly logical to leave an unanswered question alone without believing it must be one way or the other.

:dunno:

Problem is, whether we admit it or not, no one can do that.

You do have an opinion on the subject. Just as I do. And that opinion isn't "I don't know". The human brain isn't a computer and simply won't spit out an "insufficient data" response.

ksg0245

08-01-2012, 22:07

Not every one. If you'll look back into the thread that shall not be named, there are a few acceptances.

I encourage you to cite the relevant post.

It's an honest perspective.

Nope.

Cavalry Doc

08-01-2012, 22:08

Problem is, whether we admit it or not, no one can do that.

That's where you are wrong. I find it perfectly acceptable to admit that I believe that I do not know whether or not there has ever been one or more deities.

Honesty is the best policy. Believe it or not, that's really the way it is.

You do have an opinion on the subject. Just as I do. And that opinion isn't "I don't know". The human brain isn't a computer and simply won't spit out an "insufficient data" response.

A wise human brain is perfectly able to spit out an "insufficient data" response to questions that there is insufficient data to answer definitively.

Just a quick question for you. What color shirt am I wearing? There are only millions of possibilities. Can you simply admit that it is something you don't know. It may even be an answer that is not considered, like I may not be wearing one (but I am).

No kidding, all this time, and the reason that you have been dogging my backside is that you cannot fathom how someone could be a true agnostic?? O ye of much faith....:dunno:

Cavalry Doc

08-01-2012, 22:10

I encourage you to cite the relevant post.

Nope.

I'll be just fine if you cannot prove it does not exist. Just pretend I'm not correct and get over it.

(Ironic of you can see it, no?)

ksg0245

08-01-2012, 23:25

I'll be just fine if you cannot prove it does not exist. Just pretend I'm not correct and get over it.

(Ironic of you can see it, no?)

I do see the irony

Lone Wolf8634

08-02-2012, 01:21

That's where you are wrong. I find it perfectly acceptable to admit that I believe that I do not know whether or not there has ever been one or more deities.

Honesty is the best policy. Believe it or not, that's really the way it is.

As I said, admit it or not. Makes little difference to me.

A wise human brain is perfectly able to spit out an "insufficient data" response to questions that there is insufficient data to answer definitively.

I cannot infuse the written word with enough sarcasm to answer this.

Just a quick question for you. What color shirt am I wearing? There are only millions of possibilities. Can you simply admit that it is something you don't know. It may even be an answer that is not considered, like I may not be wearing one (but I am).

I can admit that I don't know.

But my mind immediately formed the opinion that your shirt is a high quality, short sleeve button up the front, single pocket (on the left) in the color of the old style cavalry uniforms.

Am I wrong? 99.99% probability. But I still formed an opinion.

No kidding, all this time, and the reason that you have been dogging my backside is that you cannot fathom how someone could be a true agnostic?? O ye of much faith....:dunno:

Obviously you missed this post in the "Atheism Is Not A Religion" thread. #110:

As long as you insist Atheism is a religion, we will disagree. It's likely that if this ridiculous notion wasn't used by Theists to discount and trivialize arguments from Atheists by saying "Oh look, you have a religion too, so you can't say anything about mine" most of us would just let it go. But since that isn't the case, we must rebut the notion whenever it rears its ugly head. So it's not really your opinion on the matter that I care about, you could believe this nonsense till the cows come home and I wouldn't care. It's that you put this misinformation out there where folks who may not understand the issue at all will read it and be influenced by it. So it becomes necessary to argue the point ad infinitum. So you have your work cut out for you if you think you'll ever have the last word on this subject.

Please note that never once did I say you didn't have the right to put your opinion out there. I'm just explaining why we continue to argue this so vehemently (with "ardor" if you wish) and why you will never win.

And I can easily see how someone could truly be an Agnostic, the position isn't all that far from my own.

Gunhaver

08-02-2012, 02:35

:rofl:

I can't believe we didn't notice this before.

CD's religion is claiming atheism is a religion.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I knew he wasn't agnostic!

Cavalry Doc

08-02-2012, 10:25

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I knew he wasn't agnostic!

Odd, you couldn't even work in "homophobe" and "racist" like you usually do.

Liberal logic cracks me up.

steveksux

08-04-2012, 07:39

Odd, you couldn't even work in "homophobe" and "racist" like you usually do.

Liberal logic cracks me up.

When the argument is lost, and the poster has you dead to rights, that's when the insults start.

Loser logic cracks ME up.

Randy

dbcooper

08-05-2012, 15:17

only evidence i have, is my wife and daughter, and my sobriety...

tears streaming down my face, i know there is a God, and, for some reason, he still loves me.

Congrats. I got a wife, 4 kids, 1 grandkid, and April 13th of next year will be my 20th year clean and I see no more proof now than I did 21, 25, or 30 yrs ago. I bounce between atheist and agnostic myself but if it works for you then more power to ya, one day at a time.